Well played.

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."

Exactly. In fact you could argue that intuition, ‘arriving at a conclusion without a conscious understanding of your reasoning’, is the only thing a neural net displays.

Isn't an heuristic the exact definition of an intuition (i.e. a way to evaluate a complex situation using simpler rules that woks most of the times)?