Why does the chess.com analysis always want you to trade pieces?

I'm not confused at all... Deepmind always tells me to sacrifice my queen, even as early as move 4. And when I don't, Boom! I lose her due to some 7-year-old on Adderall who has cleverly forked her with my knight.  Honestly, I think my membership is well worth it -- without it, I'd really have no idea what's going on.

What is the point of explaining your joke? It's not that complicated, we all got it the first time.

the reasons are pretty much trash and explain nothing

It happens to me all the time.

The thing that you quoted ("the Coach") is not the engine. The Coach is a script developed by chess.com that makes nonsensical comments loosely based on the engine's evaluation. Very loosely.

Got it. Thanks.

^^^^
This

I think the queen trade here is good because it would put you up in development by retaking with knight

Yes. The queen trade is good, and if white moves the queen away, that is also good for black, as the dominating queen moved away.

On the other hand, the explanation of "the Coach" is just insane. So bad that it is hard to find words.

LOL. Also if white moves queen away there is bishop f5 collaborating with the queen and attacking weak pawn

Coach wants me to lift the blockade. 

Well Its a computer, it's going to tell you to do something that a lot of players won't understand. If you click on "show moves" the computer is like, "Look, look!! But if you look 20 turns from now, your pawn isn't on the best square for the end game!! e.e."

That "20 turns" is actually 2 in this case. After Bf3 black can play Nd2+ then Nxf3, and that position is just equal. The engine thinks white is better in the original position (because of the bishop pair if nothing else).

The explanation of "the Coach" is nonsense. As always.

Looking at the ratings of the players who have commented in this thread it appears that the chess engines does say the lower rated players, like, below about 1500 should trade, but you players that say the computer does not tell you that you should have traded, from the ones I checked, all have higher ratings, at least 1500 and some of you are well over 2000. Is this the reason some, including me, get the message that we missed an opportunity to trade pieces? My rating is about 500 for bullet and blitz, 750 for rapid just under 1,000 for daily. Perhaps there IS some benefit for my skill level to trade pieces; as I heard a GM say once, "with less pieces on the board it simplifies the game," and maybe the chess engines are programed to take this into consideration, suggesting we would do better with a simpler game. On the other hand it would be rather presumptions to tell a 2000+ rated player that he/she "missed" an opportunity to trade pieces! That player, I think, is already working things out way beyond just the next move and a simple trade of pieces.

--Looking at the ratings of the players who have commented in this thread.--

Well they may be close enough to true, or wildly off. The reason being that what one sees is the person's current rating, not what it was at the time written. This post is a year old, so going by current ratings could be misleading. As far as the rest of it, Both game review and analysis are both stockfish, it is just that game review by large is set at weaker settings for I presume speed. Coach also has nothing to do with ones rating. However it works, it simply assigns what it thinks an appropriate statement (from stock choices) according to what took place no matter what the persons rating is.

-- GM say once, "with less pieces on the board it simplifies the game," and maybe the chess engines are programed to take this into consideration,--

Yes with less pieces on the board, there are less potential moves/threats/combinations to be seen, so it is simpler. While it makes it simpler, I am not convinced that would be the best choice to make, except perhaps those extremely new to chess??? As far a engines, from what I have seen, no. Engines again simply analyse best play, no matter what the players rating is. Best play by an engines standards will not take into consideration, let's make equal trades with no gain, to make a low level players life easier, in my opinion. 

Stating the obvious, if you have a significant material advantage, simplifying is probably a good idea. If the opposite, not a good idea. I have often seen the computer say I should have traded when neither was the case, though, and I have no idea why that is.

I don't think it has anything to do with ratings.

It's dependent on the chess computer you are using-use lichess' tools for maximum depth.