Anand is absolutely right. Computers have revolutionized the way we play chess, think about chess and prepare.
Tony Ennis mentions tablebases. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Computers have infiltrated almost every aspect of the game. The only place they're banned is when we sit down to play over the board (and perhaps on some online platforms).
At the risk of losing half the population let me make an analogy with the game of cricket. Actually Svidler, Anand, the rest of the population of India and the rest of the Commonwealth, for that matter, will understand. Computer tracking technology has revolutionized cricket and in particular the LBW law. As a result of the technology umpires now interpret the law differently, because computer technology has shown them that balls which hit the batter when he is well down the pitch would have hit the wicket, spin bowlers have a new lease of life and greater opportunities, and batters have to play spin much more carefully and skillfully than they did 20 or 30 years ago. The mindset and the way the game is played has changed.
Putting opening preparation and endgames with 7 or fewer pieces to one side, no serious book involving analysis can be published and succeed without at the very least computer checking the lines. Certain authors, like GM John Nunn, have made particularly skillful use of computers both in his endgame books and books containing analysis of old games.
But, like the computer and video technology in cricket, computers have changed the way we think about chess. We see the calm computer assessment in what looks like a horrendously risky position and realize that, yes, that apparently unsound move is playable. We realize that endgame can be drawn.
I think all the top players have learnt this to some extent but the doyen for me is Karjakin. Time and time again he over stretches and reaches positions which have the fans and expert commentators saying that he has gone too far and is going to lose (or his opponent outplays him in the middlegame) only for him to find a way to thread the needle through to a draw. This belief that apparently indefensible positions can often be defended, often in contradiction to established principles, is a mind-opening that has been brought about by computers and their use in study.
To a lesser extent I think this also happens with attacking moves. Very occasionally in one of the top games you will hear the expert commentators saying something like "Well, the computer is pointing out a fantastic line here. It involves a very unlikely piece sacrifice 3 moves into the combination. He is thinking a long time here. Will he see it? It is a computer move, not a human move" and then a few minutes later "OMG! He's played it!"
On the preparation front it is probably worth mentioning the democraticizing effect of computers. There is now a vast amount of chess knowledge which is available online which 30 years ago was only available if you subscribed to Informator and 40 years ago to Shakmatny Bulletin.
Above a certain level you can also find a lot of your opponents' games in online databases like chess-db. You can download them and quickly scan through them on your computer and hopefully identify lines you can investigate further with a view to playing against them. Even as recently as 10 years ago you mostly had to rely on your personal database of games you had played previously against them or that from co-operating friends.
Are players specifically trying to play "computer" moves? No, they are trying to play the best moves whether they accord with standard principles or not. I think this predates computers. One of the best books on this subject is John Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch" published in 1998. This makes it clear that top players have not been bound by dogmatic principles for quite some time. Computers are just the latest, most powerful tool to aid the human mind in finding chess "truth".