Best post-game analysis in plain language?

I know that there has been discussions about the best chess software, but I wanted to see what people thought about which software has the best analysis after (or during?) a game for the beginner player. I have Chessmaster 10, and it seems to be pretty good -- but what I am looking for is the easiest to read, simplest explanation of how poorly I played and what I could have done differently.   From what I have read in these forums, CM and Fritz seems to be about the same in this category, would you agree?  But maybe there are other engines that do analysis just as well that are not full-blown chess packages.  I have heard of Rybka and Crafty, but they sound more advanced in terms of feedback (more codes used, etc. - not as much "hand-holding" during analysis)...any opinions on them?  Thanks!

KnightNotHorse, before I answer, let me explain a few technical details that I believe are very relevant. There are really two types of software:

Chess Engine: Rybka, Fritz, TheKing, Crafty

Chess Analysis Software: Chessbase, Arena, Chessmaster, BabasChess, Fritz (same name!)

Chess Engines always evaluate a position numerically. Eg, if White is one pawn up his position will be evaluated as +1.00. Chess Analysis Software then uses those numerical evaluations to write something simpler. So what engine you use is almost completely unrelated to what type of annotations you see.

Chessmaster (w/ TheKing engine) and the Fritz interface (w/ any engine inc. Rybka, Crafty, and Fritz),  provide descriptive annotations like, "Whoops!  This move caused black to lose." But Chessmaster is more geared towards new players, so I think its messages are the most descriptive you'll find on the market.

I hope this helps. I didn't want you to get the impression that Rybka or Crafty have "poor annotations". It all depends on your analysis software. Many people buy both the Fritz interface and the Rybka engine and use them together.

In my view Fritz's annotation can be quite dumb at best 

Yeah. That's why I prefer symbols like +-, +/-, +=, =, =+, -/+, -+, ??, ?, !, !!. I write in my own annotations or buy books of annotated games.

Btw has anyone bought it ?

Many have bought it; nobody has received. See this thread on the Ubisoft forums. Their behavior is inexplicable... their download page said it would be available 10/30 and their homepage changed yesterday to say it's "now available" but apparently neither is true.

Here's how Chessmaster 11 auto-annotates Morphy-Anderssen, game #9. Compare this against my analysis for a good laugh.

Here's its auto-annotation of a game between amateurs. In this case it's somewhat helpful... although of course human annotation is preferable:

"12. Bc4 makes way for a castle on the kingside."

I believe this program will stunt the progress of any chess player looking for analysis if this is what it has to say about this move. 

" 16. fxe3 isolates own pawn at e4 and isolates own pawn at e3"

Uh, no mention of opening the f-file for the rook to attack the king??

Likesforests demonstrates nicely that there is no substitute for human analysis. A computer (if you know what you're doing) can often show you why a move is wrong and sometimes why a move is right, but it can't teach you how to play, how to think, or how to create.

Fritz 9

 I think that you've hit upon a key point. If you compare the output of Fritz 9 (not the latest version) and Chessmaster 11, I think several factors are evident.

*It takes less work to comprehend Chessmaster's comments. 

*A beginner with no positional understanding that is just beginning to see how the pieces interact will benefit from Chessmaster's analysis. 

*Chessmaster explains the critical error strictly in terms of material loss/gain.

*Fritz offers fewer comments, but more alternative lines (including similar games from the database).

In terms of the question that prompted this thread, Chessmaster offers better post-game analysis in plain language. However, this question itself may not be that important for choosing a chess program that wil facilitate improvement.

Fritz can hassle you while you play against it, and these comments that at first seem almost random and mostly comic, in time prove to reinforce key concepts. For example, when a passed pawn starts moving, Fritz will exclaim, "wee, the rabbit's free--all the way to the other side." It sounds like silly nonsense. But it teaches the value of passed pawns.

In my experience with Chessmaster and Fritz, the ability of the Fritz interface to accommodate multiple engines proves quite useful. In Chessmaster,  the King engine is all you get. It plays according to many "personalities," but most of these are far from human-like. Several in the 1700-2000 range, for example, will play bonehead openings and then crush you tactically after thefirst key error. But, some--even at this level--will blow elementary endgames.

The Fritz handicap levels seem more realistic in my experience.

In the Morphy-Anderssen game analyzed above, Fritz 9 offers 14...Ke7 as the alternative. Chessmaster offers 14...Qxd5. In the Fritz interface, another engine can give a second opinion. As it turns out, Hiarcs 10 agrees with Chessmaster 11. Here's the output from that analysis.

What's the status after 10 years?

Because it's childish and isn't really useful. Like some users here.

That was the same answer 10 years ago.

Basically, such annotation is simply based on the change in evaluation over the past move.  For example if you're White, and your 10th move was rated +0.37 (White is ahead by 0.37 pawn equivalents) by the chess engine, Black's 10th move was rated +0.32, and your 11th move was rated -4.54. you messed up!  A look at the engine's top recommendation might say Nd5 (+0.54).  One program may simply give you the bare-bones numbers, but that still tells you as much or more than, "Oh no, that was a bad move that could cost you the game!  You should have played Nd5!"

What I wish the engines could do is say, "You launched a pawn attack on the K-side, but you should have pushed your center pawns instead." or "Moving your N from f3 to d2 was too defensive and gave your opponent the initiative.  That's why I rate Nfd2 (-0.50) and I rate Ne5, where you threaten Black's unprotected Bishop (+1.25)."

Still if you have something like the freebie Lucas Chess (which comes with current World Computer Chess Champion Stockfish 8), which generates a lot of data, including the best 10-15 alternative moves each move, you can read where you went wrong.  For example, here's a game - a drill from chess.com - where I, White, mistakenly thought I should castle opposite and charge at Black's King with pawns.  Notice the rating of my moves 20-22 (+0.02, - 1.65, -4.13).  Notice the recommended moves are on the Q-side of the board!  In other words, "Hey!  What are you doing on attack when a bigger attack on your King is developing?"

Additionally, if you're worried about individual moves, you can see where you screwed up from the listing of variants that you can also do this way in Lucas Chess, where I, Black in another game, didn't see the winning move on my 25th move (fortunately White blew it a few moves later):

I can figure out the "Whoops!" for myself with this data!