Tnx .. I really wld like to see a real example .... I find it difficult to understand why Excellent Chess Players do not/cannot play like Engines if both hv the capability to calculate Moves way far ahead n' hv such great skills/experience/chess knowledge ( in tactics,strategies,setting traps,etc ...) ? I mean ... Isn't it possible for those Humans to make similiar Moves or think/play like them ?
.. Are those Moves juz tooo strange for any Human to make ?
Tnx .. I really wld like to see a real example .... I find it difficult to understand why Excellent Chess Players do not/cannot play like Engines if both hv the capability to calculate Moves way far ahead n' hv such great skills/experience/chess knowledge ( in tactics,strategies,setting traps,etc ...) ? I mean ... Isn't it possible for those Humans to make similiar Moves or think/play like them ?
.. Are those Moves juz tooo strange for any Human to make ?
It's not unusual for normal human's and chess engines to agree on moves or several moves in a row. It is unusual (some would say unheard of) for even the strongest players to play a whole game in agreement with an engine. Strong engines spot difficult combinations very easily and engines have no "patterns" to rely on (or to hold them back) this really changes things... there are mating patterns and positional set-ups which are strong and well known, and a strong player is very strongly inclined to move toward those -- whereas an engine will effortlessly spot weird quirky un-positional moves that work and it has absolutely no preference for 'normal' or known positions if it sees something it likes better it'll play it. Moreover the computer spots all the weird details defensively too... it leads to some very odd (to a human) looking moves.
Engines love complexity. So engines don't do what every beginner learns to do, simplify down to a won ending. Engines will keep the pieces on the board they don't give a hoot about simplifying because they never blunder or lose track of things in the complexity. At the same time, engines really suck at seeing some positional things that a human has no trouble seeing -- fortress positions are well known to confuse engines (although I've heard this is changing).
The difference between a computer's move from a human's move is very subjective. As much subjective as a person who is using a computer program from another person who does not.
I can't safely say that a person who don't use a computer program are more akin to join Vote Chess forum as they would learn some ideas from the forum (as compared to those who use a program as they would consider that a waste of time).
I can't safely say that a person who uses a program don't blunder. (Even Deep Thought lost to Kasparov).
I can't safely say that a person who uses a program will win his/her matches as the game could always be controlled.
But what's the point of using a program when your own ability to think deeper has been shallowed by the program as you would tends to be a lazy chess player?
What's the point of using a program when your initial idea/principle of playing chess at this website is to have some fun as well as trying to improve your chess repertoire?
What's the point of using a program when winning or losing at the website is not that important as compared to OTB official game?
You should take advantage of this website as your experimental chessplay. Try to discover or rediscover your new chess repertoires/ideas taking advantage of the new technologies available at your doorstep like database, past game result, etc. If you are a serious chess player, all these good tips are an important assignment/homework/tools for you to learn and improve your chess.
Anyway, have some fun...!!! 
Tnx Everyone for ur comments/explanations so far !
FirebrandX,tnx for d example but where's d rest of d game ?
.. but sometimes Humans can do this too ... like move a particular piece to another square and then bring it back a few moves later ... sometimes they might not want to move their other pieces at that time so they make some 'safe ,seemingly meaningless' moves or they may hv some strategy in mind ... Is this observation correct ?
In the first place, ratings for on line chess game should differ from the real OTB tournament game:
On Line Game: You have all the time needed to think and analyse (and even to re-analyse) your move (if you want to).
OTB Tournament Game: You have time limits and can't afford not to ration your time well otherwise you would still lose on time. So, you don't have the luxury of analysing your game much deeper than you would normally do. There is no time to take on risky manoeuvres and venture into unfamiliar lines. Most often than not, you are always trying to play those lines that you are familiar with. Some serious chess players had even rehearsed their moves/lines before the tournament. (Sometimes, I did this as well...mind mapping is very important in real tournament).
Gambitking .. Unfortunately,I'm not really in any position to be giving u advice on when to redeploy pieces but I hope someone else can ( preferably with examples n' explanation ) ... I've noticed this in GM Games .
There's an example that involves the King called 'Triangulation' in End Games tho ... guess u do know abt that one already.
The difference between a computer's move from a human's move is very subjective. As much subjective as a person who is using a computer program from another person who does not.
Tnx So Much for ur input,DaveBunn but act,I'm more interested in Humans who play like a Computer/Program or whose Moves resembles that of a program's rather than one who uses a program to play .( which is equivalent to Cheating if it inflates ur Rating n' is definitely 'No Fun'.)
Tnx Gambitbuster ... Can u explain what Engine Evaluation Points does ? .. u mean it tells which Moves r better ?
Where's d rest of d game,plz ?
( I think it wld be much simpler/easier for White to go for pawn promotion and mate with Queen then to mate with 2 Knights and a Bishop tho that sure would be more Challenging/Interesting,rite ?)
So can u tell me which Moves of FireBird_12 here,can't possibly be played by a Human and why ?
Tnx.
Doesn't this post belong here: http://www.chess.com/groups/home/cheating-forum
Well,it could but I'm not really bothered about d 'Cheating Aspect' ; but rather in d Comparison of Moves possibly made by Humans vs Engines/Programs/Computers ( as I've explained earlier ) ... sure appreciate Everyone's Input/Insight thus far ! .. Tnx !
I want to understand the basis for why some of an Engine's Moves are not even remotely Humanely possible ! ( If that's so ie.)
R u referring to the Game u posted on Post #10 ?
the player there was 100% fair, you are unfairly accusing.
Yeah .. people shouldn't be falsely accusing others unfairly unless there is 100 % conclusive Proof/Evidence !
One thing to look for, as the example Firebrand provided shows, is the seemingly senseless moving back and forth of major pieces. In his game, the Q swayed back and forth, seemingly without a specific purpose. Many computer games still see inscrutable king moves and rooks bouncing back and forth on the back rank. It's these moves, which are tactically sound, that separate humans from computers. Tactical complexity isn't the sole domain of engines. Humans are very good at working out forcing lines.
There was a Game posted recently,between Someone and Computer4-Impossible, where that person was moving his Queen back n' forth repeatedly/aimlessly supposedly in an effort to gain time ... So Humans do/can do that on purpose too ??
But computers play quiet positions far differently than humans do.
Can u give an Example,plz ? .. Tnx !
Hi, I haven't read all the posts, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating stuff. I have 2 examples showing differences in how a human and a computer plays. In one, the computer does better than any human could possibly play. The second one shows a mistake typical of those that computers make.
Tnx so Much,Steinar for your Excellent,Interesting Examples !
The computer completely fails to understand how significant the closing of this pawnstructure is to the game. No strong human player would let this happen! Black soon had a winning position, but later blundered and had to settle for a draw.
Can I ask .. Why do Lower Strength Computers supposedly 'blunder' ? .. cuz they hv been programmed that way by not being fed every/all the possible variations to consider but only a certain percentage of them ?.. or how ?
Hope this helps.
Sure did,Tnx !
Can Anyone plz explain,in detail,with examples, the difference between Human Moves/Play and Engine-Like Ones ? .. Tnx !