Speed and quality of complex strategic decisions
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Professional chess players in in-person tournament settings |
| I — Intervention | Decision speed (faster vs slower decision-making) |
| C — Comparator | Varying decision times across moves and players |
| O — Outcomes | Decision quality measured against AI chess engine computational benchmark |
Bottom Line
This observational study of professional chess players found that faster strategic decisions were associated with higher quality outcomes, even after adjusting for decision complexity and time pressure. While methodologically robust with objective measures and appropriate confounding control, the findings have limited direct clinical applicability. The chess-specific context may not translate to healthcare decision-making, where patient safety considerations often favour deliberate over rapid decisions. The study contributes valuable theoretical insights into strategic decision-making under pressure but requires validation in clinical settings before informing medical practice. Healthcare professionals should interpret these findings cautiously, recognising that optimal decision speed likely varies significantly across clinical contexts and that patient safety considerations may override pure efficiency metrics.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported in abstract
Effect Size: Faster decisions associated with higher quality (specific magnitude not reported)
Primary Outcome: Decision quality measured against AI chess engine benchmark
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Association strength not quantified in available data
Confidence Interval: Not reported in abstract
Clinical Application
Limited direct clinical application; primarily theoretical insights for decision-making research May inform medical education and clinical decision-making training programs, but requires validation in healthcare settings before practical implementation Healthcare professionals making time-pressured strategic decisions
Abstract
Many strategic decisions involve both substantial complexity and time pressure, but the association between decision speed and decision quality of cognitively demanding strategic decisions is not well understood. This paper presents evidence on this question using a setting with exceptionally detailed and precise information about decision times and decision quality-it analyses move-by-move data from in-person professional chess tournaments. Decision quality is measured by comparing actual moves to a computational benchmark of best moves constructed using the artificial intelligence of a chess engine. The results show that faster decisions are associated with higher decision quality, even after accounting for computational complexity, distinctiveness between alternatives, and time pressure. Greater computational complexity and lower distinctiveness between move alternatives are associated with longer decision times, whereas greater time pressure is associated with shorter decision times. All three factors are associated with lower decision quality. We discuss the findings against the predictions of different decision models in which individuals sequentially acquire information about alternatives with uncertain valuations, extending theories originally developed in the context of nonstrategic decisions to a strategic environment.
References
- 1.Sunde, U., Zegners, D., & Strittmatter, A. (2026). Speed and quality of complex strategic decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2531472123
Related Research
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association
Artificial Intelligence Tools for Gastrointestinal Research: A Practical Guide
2 Aug 2026
Artificial intelligence in medicine
Artificial intelligence language models for medical text analysis: A systematic review
2 Aug 2026
Surgery
Artificial intelligence to revolutionize surgical decision-making is still just around the corner.
1 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service