user749: In Fritz, I am interested to know the differences between the Full Analysis and Blunder Check. 
The differences at the first look seem superficial. For example, I wouldn't mind if there is no natural language used in the analysis which comes with full analysis. Blunder check seems to give good number of variations. So it seems better.
Is natural language the only aspect missing in Blunder Check analysis compared to full analysis? I am trying to figure out what 'full' means here.

user118: The "blunder check" option is for errors only. The level of these errors can be controlled by the "threshold" value that you can define. This threshold also applies to full analysis.
The threshold value is defined in terms of Pawn weights. A high value (say 200) will result in annotation of moves that are bad enough for +-2 pawn or greater change in evaluation, probably indicating immediate or imminent loss of material. A low value (say 30) will show also small improvements indicating where errors resulted in a positional loss equivalent to about a third of a pawn or more.
Full analysis is more detailed and can create references to the DB games and also add visual cues to the commentary it generates.
Both blunder check and full analysis show where the game was lost or won according to the threshold setting. 
The full analysis helps in a more detailed study of how the game developed, additionally showing interesting possibilities both good and bad outside the threshold values. So, if one side plays the best move where there was a very tempting bad move (big improvement on small number of ply analysis but turning badly negative on higher number of ply analysis) it will often show the tempting bad move with appropriate commentary.

user109: The following can be found on USCFSales Steve's ChessBase Tips:

“Full analysis” mode is likely the better choice for less experienced
chess players, due to the relative brevity of the alternative
variations it provides, the short verbal commentary, and the fact that
variations are evaluated symbolically rather than with numerical
values.
Blundercheck gives much more "hard" information than does "full
analysis".
The core purpose in both forms of analysis remains the same: to show
where each of the players went wrong and what they should have played
instead. “Full analysis” mode provides the information in a much
simpler form.
“Blundercheck” mode will only show improvements, not “what if…?” moves
which are actually worse.

You can find much more information on the website provided
above.  The author, Steve Lopez, has been the authority on ChessBase/Fritz software for nearly two decades.

749: <p>In Fritz, I am interested to know the differences between the Full Analysis and Blunder Check. </p>

<p>The differences at the first look seem superficial. For example, I wouldn't mind if there is no natural language used in the analysis which comes with full analysis. Blunder check seems to give good number of variations. So it seems better.</p>

<p>Is natural language the only aspect missing in Blunder Check analysis compared to full analysis? I am trying to figure out what 'full' means here.</p>
 118: <p>The "blunder check" option is for errors only. The level of these errors can be controlled by the "threshold" value that you can define. This threshold also applies to full analysis.</p>

<p>The threshold value is defined in terms of Pawn weights. A high value (say 200) will result in annotation of moves that are bad enough for +-2 pawn or greater change in evaluation, probably indicating immediate or imminent loss of material. A low value (say 30) will show also small improvements indicating where errors resulted in a positional loss equivalent to about a third of a pawn or more.</p>

<p>Full analysis is more detailed and can create references to the DB games and also add visual cues to the commentary it generates.</p>

<p>Both blunder check and full analysis show where the game was lost or won according to the threshold setting. </p>

<p>The full analysis helps in a more detailed study of how the game developed, additionally showing interesting possibilities both good and bad outside the threshold values. So, if one side plays the best move where there was a very tempting bad move (big improvement on small number of ply analysis but turning badly negative on higher number of ply analysis) it will often show the tempting bad move with appropriate commentary.</p>
 109: <p>The following can be found on <a href="http://uscfsales.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/comparing-analysis-modes-in-fritzrybka-chess-software/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">USCFSales Steve's ChessBase Tips</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Full analysis” mode is likely the better choice for less experienced
chess players, due to the relative brevity of the alternative
variations it provides, the short verbal commentary, and the fact that
variations are evaluated symbolically rather than with numerical
values.</p>
<p>Blundercheck gives much more &quot;hard&quot; information than does &quot;full
analysis&quot;.</p>
<p>The core purpose in both forms of analysis remains the same: to show
where each of the players went wrong and what they should have played
instead. “Full analysis” mode provides the information in a much
simpler form.</p>
<p>“Blundercheck” mode will only show improvements, not “what if…?” moves
which are actually worse.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can find much more information on the website provided
above.  The author, Steve Lopez, has been the authority on ChessBase/Fritz software for nearly two decades.</p>
