It has been my problem too, when I need some positive feedback for some "important" decision I make, the computer analysis says nothing:)
Computer analysis, the best mark is no mark at all...
Sort:
Solution: use Lucas Chess to analyze your games. Much more visual feedback:
Your program is obviously not designed to congratulate you on good moves but to point out mistakes. You should be happy that you found the best move.
I just play some blitz here on chess dot com and I am quite proud of myself when I find the same moves a very strong chess engine would make. For a player of my level its pretty astonishing and it proves that my study was not in vain and that makes me quite happy. 
The game above was a recent one played here, one of the toughest and most interesting I've played and been fortunate to win. The analysis is straight from this site and I just wanted to share a thought.
The opening was a straightforward najdorf and my opponent did a good job of slowly getting into position to attack my king and push his pawns supported by his heavy pieces. I was particularly proud afterwards of my 27th move, deciding on (what I thought was) a sacrifice to blow open his central strongpoint and possibly throw him psychologically. I managed to get behind his advanced pawn wall, harass his king, and throw everything into pushing my queenside pawns forward for the win.
After running the game through analysis, my "daring" rook-sac gets no mention at all. This has been true of every game on every analysis engine I've run where it turns out, according to the computer, I happened to find the "best move." During the game, I was anxious, unsure, but positive I needed to do something drastic to try to thwart the momentum of the position. Computers just don't get that, and all they seem to do is tell you how many question marks you got during the game.
I guess the only positive feedback you get is satisfaction from a hard-fought game or the W...