Computer Analysis vs. Self Annotation

Since I've become a premium member I've been letting the computer go over my games for me. I used to annontate them myself.

I'm wonderng what you find more helpful and why.

Brains first, silicon second

+1 

Yes. I am an experienced chess engine user. I have had novags . Now I use Shredder. I agree: brain first, engine second. Some weird experiences that i have had:

- the engine saying that I was winning by 2 pawns when I had equal material in all respects. But I had isolated triple pawns and a double pawn.

- the engine giving a different line to advantage the second time I ran it in a position with the same settings!

I like to use the PC analysis here which shows up a lot of mistakes and errors I overlooked in the game. BUT the PC analysis here is also bogus in several respects it labels some perfectly acceptable and sound opening lines as "mistakes" and also drones on about errors made when you're already several pawns down (either literally or in terms of assessing the position) and then indicates a "best line" of play in which you end up - several pawns down.

SO it's best to combine PC analysis with your own, don't stop doing your own but don't skip the free analysis here either. And you can always at least check out the PC analysis when you don't have time to do your own for every move in every game you play.

I agree with the above 

PC Analysis can be very unreliable. For instance, Shredder tells me white has a big advantage in the Dutch and the Scandinavian and tells me white has a forced win in the Dutch- not true :)

Thanks for all your input. I just downloaded SCID and I'm findiing it really helpful. I am annotating my own games and I just downloaded a bunch of games from Tal and Fischer that I plan to go through and annotate myself.

I do run my games through the computer after I annotate them mainly to get satisfation from when my analysis matches up with the computer :)