Search , Recognition , and Visualization in Chess : Rebuttal to Gobet ’ s Critique of Chabris & Hearst ( 2003 )

In an article published in Cognitive Science, Chabris and Hearst (2003; hereafter C&H) used computer analysis of errors in grandmaster games to measure the effects of additional thinking time and the ability to see the board on decision quality in expert-level chess. By comparing games played by the same players at rapid (R) and slower “classical” (C) time limits, we concluded that additional thinking time substantially increases the quality of moves played. By comparing rapid games to blindfold (B) games between the same opponents, we concluded that the benefit of being able to see the chessboard and pieces during the game was surprisingly small. We discussed the implications of these results for theoretical claims about the relative values of pattern recognition and forward search in chess expertise, especially a claim by Gobet and Simon (1996a; hereafter G&S) that pattern recognition is the more important process. Here we respond to comments made in an unpublished critique of our work by Gobet (2003).