Study Finds Pro Chess Players Make Better Moves When They Decide Faster

At the chessboard, the clock is ticking, and the best players in the world are doing something that seems to defy common sense: the faster they decide, the better their moves tend to be.

That’s the central finding of a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and it cuts against a deeply held assumption about how good decisions get made. Most people believe that slowing down and thinking harder leads to smarter choices, especially when the stakes are high. Researchers set out to test that assumption, and professional chess gave them the perfect place to do it.

These findings may offer a useful way to think about decisions beyond the chessboard, particularly in fields where experts make repeated choices under pressure. But the study does not prove that faster decisions are always better in everyday life, courtrooms, boardrooms, or crises.

How Researchers Measured 215,000 Chess Moves

To understand how decision speed and quality relate, the research team analyzed move-by-move data from more than 215,000 individual moves across roughly 3,600 in-person professional chess tournament games. The three authors, affiliated with institutions in Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, designed the study to capture something most decision research lacks: precise, comparable data on both how long a decision took and how good it was.

Quality was not judged by human opinion. Each move was evaluated against the recommendation of a state-of-the-art chess engine, a computer program that identifies the move it rates as best from a given position. By comparing what the human player actually did to what the computer recommended, the researchers had a consistent, objective measuring stick for every decision in their dataset. That benchmark is powerful, though the authors note it depends on the specific engine and its algorithmic choices, so it isn’t perfect.

The study also tracked three additional factors that could influence both how long a player thinks and how well they play: time pressure, measured by how much clock time remained; position difficulty, measured by how much computational work the chess engine needed to find the best move; and how clearly the best move stood apart from the second-best option.

Faster Is Better, Across Every Format of Chess

The headline result is clear: faster decisions were associated with better moves. To get there, the researchers had to untangle how those three additional factors played their own roles. Players tended to think longer when they had more time available, when positions were more complex, and when the best move was harder to distinguish. Lower time pressure, lower complexity, and clearer alternatives were also linked with better move quality. Yet even with all of those factors accounted for statistically, the link between moving quickly and moving well remained.

The data covered three formats of competitive chess: classical games, which typically allow at least two hours of total thinking time; rapid games, with roughly ten to sixty minutes per player; and blitz games, where each player has only three to ten minutes for the entire game. The negative relationship between thinking time and move quality appeared consistently across all three.

The connection grew stronger as time pressure increased. In blitz and rapid chess, where players have far less time to deliberate, the penalty for lingering on a move was more pronounced. One interpretation offered in the paper is that in faster formats, players rely more heavily on intuition and pattern recognition, and when that intuition is strong, decisions come quickly and cleanly.

When Hard Problems Resist More Thinking

So why would spending more time on a move be associated with worse outcomes? When a chess position is genuinely difficult, and no obvious best move stands out, players naturally spend more time searching for an answer. But that extra search time doesn’t necessarily produce a better answer. The difficulty itself is the problem.

A long deliberation time is often a symptom of a hard problem, not a cure for it. The paper describes this as “subjectively perceived complexity,” the player’s internal sense that a situation is difficult, which is distinct from the mathematically measurable difficulty of the position. Even after accounting for objective computational difficulty, the link between longer thinking and worse outcomes persisted.

Conversely, when a player moves quickly, it may signal that strong intuition pointed clearly toward the right answer early, making further deliberation unnecessary. An additional analysis using a chess engine trained to mimic human-style play supported this: when that engine’s recommendation aligned closely with the mathematically optimal move, decision quality was systematically higher, suggesting that the ease with which a human mind can recognize a good move plays an independent role in both speed and quality.

In Chess, the Best Moves Often Come Before the Doubt Does

Professional chess is an unusual window into human thinking precisely because it demands repeated, high-stakes decisions from people who have dedicated their lives to making them well, all under time pressure, all with precise records of every choice.

In chess, at least, the data suggest that the best moves often come when the answer is easier for the player to recognize, before a long search begins.

---