As far as I know, every chess playing program combines a depth-limited search of the game tree with a heuristic algorithm to estimate the favorability of each position. There's a tradeoff between using a cheaper heuristic allowing more positions to be evaluated and using a sophisticated heuristic on fewer positions.

Humans play in more or less the same way, but evaluate far fewer positions using a far more sophisticated heuristic.

I'd expect that the most human-like computer players would be the ones that evaluate the fewest positions per unit time. AlphaZero, for instance, evaluates about 0.1% as many positions as Stockfish (though still many orders of magnitude more than a human), and I'd expect it to be somewhat more human-like than Stockfish as a result. I have no actual experience to back that up, though.

As far as I know, every chess playing program combines a depth-limited search of the game tree with a heuristic algorithm to estimate the favorability of each position. There's a tradeoff between using a cheaper heuristic allowing more positions to be evaluated and using a sophisticated heuristic on fewer positions.

Humans play in more or less the same way, but evaluate far fewer positions using a far more sophisticated heuristic.

I'd expect that the most human-like computer players would be the ones that evaluate the fewest positions per unit time using more sophisticated heuristics. AlphaZero, for instance, evaluates about 0.1% as many positions as Stockfish (though still many orders of magnitude more than a human), and I'd expect it to be somewhat more human-like than Stockfish as a result. I have no actual experience to back that up, though.