What the heck is a 'human' move?

We have a bias which is keeping us from true chess greatness, which is that we constantly distinguish between 'human'-looking and 'engine'-looking moves, when in reality there are only worse and better moves respectively.

I've even heard of 'engine'-type moves being looked upon with disdain (like how dare the engine calculate so well?)

Humans are so fascinating.

Human moves are moves that a human would likely consider because of the way we calculate lines and consider positional aspects. Usually good human players' moves are very linear and follow a clear plan. Engine moves usually refer to either some strange tactical combination that a human could not be reasonably expected to find or even stranger are the seemingly random pawn or backwards piece moves engines seem to make in the middle of a busy position in order to gain some sort of strategic edge.

That's dumb.

Which is why I predict this topic has potential. Maybe even 100+ posts. Good luck.

Human move:
Beginning of a 4 move sequence that destroys counterplay and causes opponent to resign.

And in the same position...

Computer move:
Is 1/10th of a pawn better, but requires 20 moves of accurate defense, otherwise you instantly lose... additionally, once you actually put those moves on the board, it's not 1/10th of a pawn better anymore, it's half a pawn worse than the human's choice.

That's the crux of the issue: couldn't humans, in all of their ingenuity in the existence of their species, find a method to work out these tactical combinations? In a postmodern world, all these move labels such as 'natural', 'quiet', 'human' etc. are totally illusory human constructs and simply limit our conceptual model of chess to the point that we recoil when an 'engine'-type move is presented (Levy's colourful descriptors come to mind).

Then play 20 moves of accurate defense. Simple as.

What's dumb are human moves, since engine moves are already the best.

Humans aren't capable of calculating so many moves in so much depth within a reasonable timescale. Computers surpassed us on raw calculation power, long ago. What we're good at is pruning moves which seem unlikely to lead to the best outcomes. Computer algorithms are weak at this kind of pruning and that's were the non-human-like moves come from. They calculate deep on moves which we discard much earlier. This kind of pruning is where our ingenuity lies. We train a neural network, our brain, which encodes our prior experience of Chess which we draw upon when we play to enable us to vastly reduce the number of moves which we consider. Neither are perfect, but on balance today's computers outperform even the best trained human minds at Chess.

A move made by a human.

I hope that helps.

I like it when I simplify and consolidate a winning position but the engine will recommend a double edge winning line.

Dude, without those human constructs we couldn't comprehend chess...

I don't really see your point here... Are you implying that calling engine moves "engine moves" somehow limit our own potential as humans? That's simply illogical and overly optimistic, engines are built and designed for the explicit purpose of playing the best chess possible with our current technology, humans are beings far more advanced then that but not singularly specialized to be good at exactly one thing and play millions of games against ourselves to improve. Human chess has advanced tremendously since the 1800s partly because we try to learn from the engines, but no human will ever be able to play every "engine move"