This paper presents novel evidence for the prevalence of deviations from rational behavior in human decision making - and for the corresponding causes and consequences. The analysis is based on move-by-move data from chess tournaments and an identification strategy that compares behavior of professional chess players to a rational behavioral benchmark that is constructed using  modern chess engines . The evidence documents the existence of several distinct dimensions in which human players deviate from a rational benchmark. In particular, the results show deviationsrelated to loss aversion , time pressure, fatigue, and cognitive limitations . The results also demonstrate that deviations do not necessarily lead to worse performance. Consistent with an important influence of intuition and experience, faster decisions are associated with more frequent deviations from the rational benchmark, yet they are also associated with better performance  .
This paper presents a novel approach to analyze human decision-making that involves comparing the behavior of professional chess players relative to a computational benchmark of cognitively bounded rationality. This benchmark is constructed using algorithms of modern chess engines and allows investigating behavior at the level of individual move-by-move observations, thus representing a natural benchmark for computationally bounded optimization. The analysis delivers novel insights by isolating deviations from this benchmark of bounded rationality as well as their causes and consequences for performance. The findings document the existence of several distinct dimensions of behavioral deviations, which are related to asymmetric positional evaluation in terms of losses and gains , time pressure, fatigue, and complexity . The results also document that deviations from the benchmark do not necessarily entail worse performance. Faster decisions are associated with more frequent deviations from the benchmark, yet they are also associated with better performance . The findings are consistent with an important influence of intuition and experience, thereby shedding new light on the recent debate about computational rationality in cognitive processes .
R
novel evidence for the prevalence of deviations from rational behavior in human decision making - and for the corresponding causes and consequences. The analysis is based on move-by-move data from chess tournaments and an identification strategy that compares
a novel approach to analyze human decision-making that involves comparing the
R
to a rational behavioral benchmark that
relative to a computational benchmark of cognitively bounded rationality. This benchmark
A
algorithms of
R
. The evidence documents
and allows investigating behavior at the level of individual move-by-move observations, thus representing a natural benchmark for computationally bounded optimization. The analysis delivers novel insights by isolating deviations from this benchmark of bounded rationality as well as their causes and consequences for performance. The findings document
R
in which human players deviate from a rational benchmark. In particular, the results show deviationsrelated to loss aversion
of behavioral deviations, which are related to asymmetric positional evaluation in terms of losses and gains
R
cognitive limitations
complexity
R
demonstrate that deviations
document that deviations from the benchmark
R
lead to
entail
R
Consistent with an important influence of intuition and experience, faster
Faster
D
rational
A
. The findings are consistent with an important influence of intuition and experience, thereby shedding new light on the recent debate about computational rationality in cognitive processes