Just to observe, humans display exactly the same phenomenon of ignoring a move before it's made while still being able to realize, after it's made, that it was very strong and ignoring it was a mistake.
Just to observe, humans display exactly the same phenomenon of ignoring a move before it's made while still being able to realize, after it's made, that it was very strong and ignoring it was a mistake.
Which... suggests the computer displays intuition
OP's choice of words is inexact. The engine has a different intuition, not none. Humans will usually explore trades and overlook seemingly "slow" moves that the computer usually finds.
What the engine does lacks is what chess players call "theory," hence the need for endgame DBs. Humans can also beat engines with "logic," like the Naka match. That one was extraordinary. A simpler & more typical example is isolating a pawn so that it can't ever be defended, but also can't be attacked immediately. For a human, it's easy to understand this is long term vulnerability even if the pawn survives for 20+ more moves.
Anti-computer strategies, ironically, force you to "play the player, not the board."
Furthermore, heuristics are rules, while intuitions are not. Sometimes people use their intuition to go against what a heuristic suggests!
A machine which is just pruning a search space with a low-quality valuation strategy isn't doing anything very impressive; only very fast.
A human with a very high quality valuation technique, but a slow search pace, is relevantly impressive.