I didn't mention Penrose because he is an outlier. I mention him as an example where tool use disproportionally effects resultant performance, or conversely as an example of where a specific link in a reasoning chain effects the outcome. I think that is more close to normal than not. I.e. you can often patch people, and they become better at something.

Regarding chess, research suggests you're wrong:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690...

https://hvandermaas.socsci.uva.nl/Homepage_Han_van_der_Maas/...