When Adams lost to Hydra 5.5-.5, one of the things that upset me the most was some of the commentary on the ICC. Hydra's brilliant combination at the end of the second game was not unveiled gradually in a dramatic way, but instantly cited by computer programs. This practice has always bothered me and my brother [IM Greg Shahade], who went as far as to instate a no-computer analysis rule on ICC coverage of the New York Masters.
If someone wants to use computers to analyze top level live games, that's fine, but why not be courteous? Some people might enjoy the drama of not knowing exactly when Kramnik is up 4.37 pawns and Leko should resign. Others might even want to train their own tactics rather than have Fritz force-feed them variations.
It's always a complex question for me when I'm analyzing a game or an opening: When to turn on Fritz? I'm tempted right away, but as soon as the engine purrs, I stop thinking and my eyes glaze over... mesmerized by the crunching of numbers on the bottom left corner of my screen. A frequent problem is that Fritz will often choose a weird move as the main variation while a normal-looking, but losing, move doesn't even show up on the screen. What this means for me is if I overuse Fritz in analyzing, I'll misunderstand the logic of a game. Much of using Fritz well is knowing when to turn it off. (or ignore it)