I guess you could say that the difference between human and computer intelligence is that humans don't have total recall, while computers do. This allows computers to add large numbers without trouble or play millions of entire games at random and choose the best, etc.
On the other hand, there's always a chance that humans' incomplete recall is a hallmark of general intelligence.
>> Also there was something human like in the way alphazero learns unlike say stockfish which is more calculator like.
That's a matter of interpretation. AlphaZero plays by searching a huge space of possible moves- humans dont' play like that. It learns by playing itself millions of times. Again, humans don't learn like that.
There's nothing human about AlphaZero, nor Stockfish far as I can tell.
____________________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Calculation_World_Cup
For instance, computers are decidedly better than humans at arithmetic. Yet nobody (today) thinks that just because computers can do arithmetic very quickly and accurately, they are more intelligent than humans.
Is there anything special in Go or chess that makes a specific skill at them a necessary and suficient condition for general intelligence? We are impressed at the performance of AlphaZero because humans find it very hard to play Go etc well. On the other hand, we also find it extremely hard to, e.g. divide two arbitrary 100-digit numbers -but we are not impressed by a pocket calculator as much as we are by AlphaZero. Might there be an element of psychological bias in our ability to be impressed, then?