Yes, this is why when a grandmaster plays, say a 1500 player, the GM is almost certainly doing much less calculation and "cognition" as you put it. Their experience (study and games) filters out the extraneous and they get right to the point of the position.
Interestingly, I think deduction isn't nearly as important in chess as the general public thinks. Along with extensive calculation I think these are the two biggest myths non-players hold about chess. Of course logic is used, but it blends seamlessly with the perception of experienced players making any deduction very efficient... but if the average non-player knew how much is guided by experience (study and games) then they might consider this deduction almost superficial. e.g. we're not logically thinking though a position as much as we're searching for the most appropriate reference point to draw lessons from, then some calculation verifies if it's sound tactically.
Another interesting point may be that although a large portion of skill in chess is due to this "perception" chess players may not be aware of it. Their conscious mind is busy calculating variations while the pattern recognition is largely unconscious. But an experienced player need only look at a beginner's game and comments to realize how much many moves and ideas they're instantly dismissing in their own games.
When cognition becomes perception.
Thinking can be defined in many ways. You can associate, recall memories, imagine visual material etc. What kind of thinking do we apply in chess? “Deduction” is a very basic and nessecary skill we need to utilize in order to become competent players. Deduction means, that we are in a situation where we know what laws, rules or principles that is defining and we utilize these to understand what to do to get a specific result. Deduction in chess could go like this: “… If I do this, then he could do that, but that would mean…”. It would often be in a verbalized form (inner voice). In opposition we have “induction” which means that we don´t know the rules etc. in a given situation and have to figure these out by observing what is going on – or do an experiment like a scientist. We also use induction when we for example try a variation of our moves after a chess game. We study the outcome and if it is better and then we make a different priority of deduction or application of chess theory. In my view deduction doesn´t always lead to a decisive point in a chess game, it can lead to an ambiguous situation that none the less seems to favor your position.
As we get more experience playing chess our thinking sometimes changes. Instead of the somewhat cumbersome deduction thinking we now see possibilities, even winning moves instantaneously. How can you explain this? “Pattern recognition” some would say. From the chess players point of view I will claim that it would be experienced as perception instead of cognition. Gestalt psychologists made the interesting observation that we recognize certain phenomena instantaneously. You don´t see a nose, a mouth, two eyes and conclude; this is a human being. You “pattern recognize” and it is as if you don’t think but instead perceive. The explanation could very well be, that you at a specific point of development instantaneously can recognize another human being as a result of repetitious experience.
So could the explanation be that if we are put in the same (chess) situation enough times then we don´t use cognition anymore but instead what we could call perception…? I “see” the solution instead of figuring it out. If you for example do a chess puzzle and it is very, very easy then I would claim that it is because you don´t have to apply thinking – you “see” the solution instead. Perception in this sense is preverbal and that is also what makes it fast. If you make a move on the basis of perception then you could have a situation where you are having a difficulty explaining why you made that specific move. And when this occurs is it then what we call “intuition”? Pattern recognition could probably also cover a situation where the pattern you recognize is only partly based on previous memory but where the same moves has to be applied which also would make it difficult to verbalize a specific move you make.
Is the chess player who recognizes a pattern the fastest also the best…? I guess most people would say yes but I imagine that it is when you are on a tight time limit that this mode of thinking is superior combined with the ability to utilize chess theory. Chess theory could be defined as generalized knowledge (a passed pawn is dangerous etc.) that can guide you in an ambiguous situation. Image that you have enough time and raw brain power – then deduction will do the trick instead. A thought experiment; image that you have a person or some sort of unit with infinite thinking power (or artificial intelligence – here understod as the ability to improve your own thinking by the principle of metacognition – “thinking about your own thinking”). You explain the rules of chess only once. That´s it. Nothing more. My claim will be that we now have the best – or even ultimate – chess player. Agree…?
Just my more or less confused chess thoughts based on my knowledge as a psychologist and a amatour chess player.
Regards Simon