Well almost every computer playing chess algorithm uses piece counts to evaluate the quality of chess positions, because barring an amazing tactical combination (which can usually be computationally eliminated past 5 moves) or a crushing positional advantage, a loss of pieces will mean the victory of the person with more pieces.<p>I would argue you see far more pattern recognition at play in chess than you do of heuristics.  Heuristics is more common at lower levels of play.<p>When Grandmaster&#x27;s rely on pattern recognition, they are using their vast repertoire of remembered positions as a way to identify opportunities of play.  It&#x27;s not that they think the move looks right, it&#x27;s that they played a lot of tactical puzzles, and because of this pattern recognition, they are now <i>capable of identifying</i> decisive attacks that can then be objectively calculated within the brain to be seen as leading to checkmate or a piece advantage.<p>They don&#x27;t make the move because of the pattern or heuristic.  They make the move because the pattern allowed them to see the objective advantage in making that move.<p>------<p>As for your point about a move being objectively good:  Unless you completely solve the game of chess, there will never be always one move in every situation that&#x27;s objectively the best.  In many games (and you will see this in computer analysis), 2 or 3 moves will hold high promise, while others will hold less.  From an objective standpoint all these three moves could be objectively better than all others, but it could be hard to justify that one is necessarily better than another.<p>The reason for this is partly because between two objectively &#x27;equal&#x27; moves, there may be a rational reason for me to justify one over the other based on personal considerations (e.g. because I am familiar with the opening, because I played and analyzed many games similar to this line, because I can play this end game well, etc.)  Decisions based on those considerations are not what I would call heuristics, because they are based on objective reasons even if heuristics may have contributed to their formation within the mind.