computers are hmm silly when you make them play at a reduced strength. They will make moves that are just random. a few programs have worked hard on making good reduction in level with out making just silly moves.
Fritz is a classic one at this
in all yes playing AND reviewing games is always good. Also if you beat the computer 2x in a row bump it up a notch in difficulty.
Its an oldy but I still think that Chessmaster is a good computerprogram to play against. It has develloped different "human" characters with their own level and flaws. The only thing is, if you are playing against weaker (say sub1000) opponents then they suddenly play amzingly strong in avoiding checkmate. Also the presented ratings are not very accurate if compared to elo, but hey.
the ratings computers give you are only valid internally. not applicable to external ratings. this is true with any group.
chessmaster is good too a.
I would play one at 1800-2000 in longer games that should push you to be careful tactically but not so bad ou cannt beat them with care and strategy
Thanks for all of your responces so far. Just to recapitulate, if I understand you all correctly, as long as I put the program (Chessmaster, Fritz, ect,.) at a decent strength level , I can pretty much count on it to properly prepare me for "real" play with "real" opponents??
Well , I haven't played ChessMaster for 3 years so I'm thinking.... YES! Oh yh, and start with the kids to play against.
I don't think playing against computers is a good training to prepare playing against humans, if only because computers play so differently...
Let me explain : they won't make the same kind of mistakes a human would do, they won't attack or defend the same way a human would do, and obviously, they won't spot tactics the same way a human would do.
Sure, if you dumb down the computer, they can help you practicing at winning won games (they give you a piece for free, and then defend stubornly), but that's pretty much the only use I can see. If you play them full strength, this is a rather depressing experience, and will probably result in loss of self-confidence and development of a passive/defensive style.
Why not practice against human players on the Internet : on chess.com you have thousands of people logged on at any time day or night ?
But you can lose your rating so going unrated it good.
I don't think playing against computers is a good training to prepare playing against humans, if only because computers play so differently...
Let me explain : they won't make the same kind of mistakes a human would do, they won't attack or defend the same way a human would do, and obviously, they won't spot tactics the same way a human would do.
Sure, if you dumb down the computer, they can help you practicing at winning won games (they give you a piece for free, and then defend stubornly), but that's pretty much the only use I can see. If you play them full strength, this is a rather depressing experience, and will probably result in loss of self-confidence and development of a passive/defensive style.
Why not practice against human players on the Internet : on chess.com you have thousands of people logged on at any time day or night ?
Actually your post answered exactly what I was trying to ask!!! Will the computer games prepare me for human players, and it seems that your answer is NO!!!! Now to answer YOUR question, I'd rather practice against the computer because for some strange reason (at least for me) it's a lot easier to take a loss from the computer than a real person. Not sure why, but I joined this site to learn and LISTEN from those who know more than me, so I guess I'll have to learn to buck up and loose to real people too, lol.
Actually your post answered exactly what I was trying to ask!!! Will the computer games prepare me for human players, and it seems that your answer is NO!!!! Now to answer YOUR question, I'd rather practice against the computer because for some strange reason (at least for me) it's a lot easier to take a loss from the computer than a real person. Not sure why, but I joined this site to learn and LISTEN from those who know more than me, so I guess I'll have to learn to buck up and loose to real people too, lol.
I also agree with hicetnunc's post. There is definitely a different "feel" to a computer than a human's game, even though you can certainly still learn from playing both. But to your point about not playing real people... don't get so hung up over it. Once your rating has stabilized so that you're matched with people equally in your rating bracket - some above , some below - you *will* be losing half your games on average. (Winning half too, but losing half for sure.) Its just the way it works :-) So the sooner you realize losing is an integral part of your chess career, the sooner you can just enjoy the game and say "what the hell, not the end of the world" when you don't win and move on to the next one.
When you say it's difficult for you to lose against a real person, do you mean OTB (over-the-board, face to face) or even on Internet ?
Chessmaster can be useful to work on specific openings. If you play e4 as white, then you have to be prepared to answer .... c5. "Slick" is a 17something artificial opponent who always plays the Sicilian. His lines may not always be cutting edge, but I'll admit that "Slick" is a very convenient opponent. You can get well into a typical Sicilian middle game before he blunders, and then you have to figure out how to take advantage. Training wheels for sure, but everyone has to start somewhere ........
Thank you for your insight Metastable, it seems right on the money!! To answer your question Hicetnunc (as I don't know how the forum feels about double posting, lol), when I talk about loosing to a real person I mean on the Internet. And it's not because of those rapid fire "lol's" they send you the minute you hang your Queen!!!! 
I just find something really annoying about it. But I guess as you and Metastable have pointed out, I'll just have to learn to deal with it and move on. OTB I only have the opportunity to play with friends right now, so it's really not a problem. Win or loose, we just play the next day and that's that.
If you have the opportunity to play OTB with friends and you feel comfortable about it, you could also write down the moves of these friendly games to analyze them afterwards and/or post them in the game analysis forum here.
OTB is better than Internet for learning purposes anyway, because of emotions involved when playing face-to-face (emotions help with memorizing stuff).
The advantage of playing against computers is that you can force them to play the exact position you want to practice. If you use them to practice endgames, give them the side that needs to defend heroically, they are not good at finding plans, but are very strong at passive defense.
I agree with the winning game practice, a good wa to do this is take a middle game or endgame position thats complex but the side is rated as much better or winning (with out a clear tactical win) and make the computer play the losing side at full strength.
its great for opening practice
and if you dumb them down only to say 2200 level they are good practice to make you tactically alert which is great for amateurs but you can beat them strategically. (comps are really bad strategically which is highlighted when you dumb them down tactically)
Simplest answer here... Yes
Okay it seems that maybe I can get some decent use out of my pc for practicing openings or specific positions. But is it really that hard for a computer to emulate a human player, is the NO program out there that does this???
I do play play against computers for training. Not the full games but starting from specific positions:
1. Endgames. You play for the side that has to win or draw. That't the best endgame training I found so far.
2. Tactical problems. First you find the tactics that typically wins some material for you. But you don't stop there - you try to win the game and it's not obvious against a silicon monster.
3. Strategic positions. Taken from master games or positional problem books. Here you will loose eventually. The goal is to try to avoid mistakes as long as possible.
All is played against an engine running at full strength.
i used 2 play against the computer even b4 the internet came along and then i took lessons with a human "master." both improved my game and with the master i learned what i was doing right and what i was doing wrong. i still play against the computer from time to time and the computer does show me my mistakes and helps me to learn to play better. the computer is good for practicing specific openings and specific positions since such positions only show up once in a while in real life.
I am sure that most of you understand that for whatever reason, sometimes you just don't feel like playing against a "human" player, lol, (maybe you just got up or it's late and you are half asleep) and would prefer to play against a computer opponent. However, after watching a lot of videos lately on the net trying to gleen some usefull information, I hear comments like "that's a computer move, I'd never play that" by FIDE rated players like Paul Georghiou on Kingscrusher videos. So basically, I'm just wondering if I wasting my time by "practicing" against the computer before taking on "real" oppenents. Therefore, I was hoping that some of the more experienced players here could tell me if I can really learn to play a decent game of chess playing against the PC every once in a while. H.G.