This question is inspired by yesterday's matches between Hikaru Nakamura + Rybka vs Stockfish. Nakamura was allowed to use an older version of Rybka to help him, and Stockfish was allowed to play with its full strength but not use an opening book or an endgame tablebase.
Question 1: How might players such as Nakamura use Rybka to improve their play against a computer opponent?
I can come up with a few naive guesses: check their own moves for blunders; check the computer's suggestions to see if there are some convoluted move sequences which lead to a huge advantage; and letting the computer play the endgame for them. This does not need to be the full story though. Maybe there are useful features that chess engines have that I am not aware of. I'm also wondering to what degree a human player would rely on his own intuition: would he always play his own moves assuming the computer never suggested a blunder or an amazing winning move which is difficult to see?
My second very similar question is inspired by a few comments by Nakamura in a reddit thread, namely
Fischer would almost certainly lose to [people such as myself, Carlsen, and Kasparov], but this is due to the fact that the game has so fundamentally changed. If Fischer had a few years to use computers, I think he would probably be on the same level.
I think mainly what can be learned from computers is a deeper understanding that almost all positions are ok with accurate play. In the past, many people assumed certain positions were automatically bad, but computers have shown that the rules and thought processes aren't always accurate!
Question 2: How have computers changed the way top players play today (when unassisted by computers)?
What is meant by the first quote? The second quote indicates that one might not want to give up too early, but does not suggest any change in playstyle.