Entanglement of perception and reasoning in the combinatorial game of chess: Differential errors of strategic reconstruction

We question Chase and Simon’s (1973) study concerning the content of the chess chunks, and we conduct a new variation of the classic chess reconstruction experiments, analyzing 25 types of possible reconstruction errors of grandmasters, masters, and beginners. The differences between the errors conducted in poor, intermediate, and strategically perfect reconstructions provide insights concerning the encoding of experts. The results obtained shed clear light into the debate concerning the importance of abstract thought (i.e., forward search) vs. perceptual processes (i.e., pattern recognition). We claim that a clear solution to this debate is ultimately unfeasible, as our experiments demonstrate high entanglement of perception and reasoning. Our results provide additional evidence that analogy is central to strategic thought in chess.