My first thought when I saw this was, "Hasn't all of this been studied before?" Then I looked at the paper. It's from 1996.
I don't remember where I saw this, but I vaguely recall reading an article or interview where someone, perhaps one of Kasparov's trainers, was discussing how he thinks. And I think he said that Kasparov's real strength isn't so much in his ability to calculate concrete variations (although he is of course a fearsome calculator) as much as it is that his understanding of dynamic features of positions is superior to most other players. He has a better sense of when it's good to give up material for the initiative, when it's good to wreck his pawn structure to open up lines for his pieces, and so on. So even when his games look like a mass of complicated tactics, there is a great deal of positional/strategic intuition underlying them.
On the other hand, Magnus Carlsen says that the biggest difference between him and Kasparov is that Kasparov calculates better while he (Carlsen) has better positional intuition.
There are also a lot of strong chess players who will tell you that positionally correct moves in chess are usually tactically correct as well -- if you know which features of the position are the important ones.
I don't think anyone would doubt that deep analysis helps to build pattern recognition, but there's an interesting question as to whether (for example) it's better to study a few positions deeply or to spend the same amount of time studying a wide variety of positions more superficially. (I tend to suspect the latter is better, up to a point.)
:20 per move isn't blitz.
This is blitz:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzrap8Vtyq8