HELP NEEDED! How to Analyse Candidate Moves

Never have I got a satisfactory answer for this question.

I can successfully list out all candidate moves in a position, but how can I analyse them by going deep into the variations (say, 2 moves deep)? What is the correct method to analyse a candidate move? 

P.S- DOIRSE, if you can help, it would be brilliant

The answer is to buy or find the book by Kotov, "Think Like a Grandmaster" and not ask someone to recreate it for you here.

I found a PDF of the whole damn book quickly online.

Not that I approve and I own my own copy of the book but I don't think you should ask anyone to recreate here what you can find on your own with a little effort.

I have a PDF version, but it is not of any help. If you can't assist, why do you insist of being a wet blanket all the time?

You have to read it. Just "having it" doesn't work.

You now have my permission to shut up.

P.S Obviously having it in this context signifies read. 

People spent a lot of time explaining it to you in your last thread.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/please-explain-kotovs-analysis-tree-method

If there is something you don't understand, go back to that thread and ask questions about what people have said.

Instead of starting all over again.

That last response from Doirse probably took over an hour to put together and you haven't even responded. He was quite clear. You need to reread what people have already given you.

I like Jerry Silmans approachs in his books.

Trying to be able to deciper the position and read the board to see what it wants you to do.

I have never liked the whole Candidate Moves approach.

I find it retarded and lame. What is the point of learning Candidate moves if you have no clue what your doing in the position. Its like practicing/pretending to eat food with out having the food in front of you.

At move 1 white has 20 Candidate Moves Wooo Hoooo. We sure are making progress here. The Chess Coaches would be so proud!

I have never liked the whole Checking for Checks,Captures,Threats or what ever that approach is.

I saw a video of a chess coach telling his student to check for checks, captures, threats. At first I started laughing becuase I thought it was some sick joke. Than I started to cry becuase I realized it was for real. What was worse was the position was at like move 3. Which makes no sense in the word.

The student sounded at least in his 30-40's had to be. Coach asking him if he sees any king checks at move 4. Student took a long pause and was like No I don't see any. Coach was like yeah your right there isn't any don't be afraid to shout out the answer if you don't see any.

I wasn't even the student and I was not even in that situation and I was upset lol. I would of told that jerk off if it was me. Telling the guy to look for checks at move 3 to train his mind. F you, I'll use that money you charging me to get myself some tacos. My chess might not improve but I sure will feel a whole lot better eating tacos. Thats for dam sure.

I could understand if people were to use these approachs in a position in which they are completely clueless about. Like they reach a position where they have no idea what on earth to do. Than doing these approachs might help jolt their mind into coming up with something. Than these approaches might be useful. However, using them at move 3? even at move 5? I mean come on.

I just want to point out I'm not hating on these methods. I'm just not a big fan on how some people apply them into teaching others.