Michelin Three Star Restaurant; but if the chef is not there [closed]

3 star restaurants are a business (*); for (probably bad) example, if I was to buy a Tesla car, I would not expect Elon Musk to build my car or even be at the auto-dealer.

Chefs will rarely cook; they will create the dishes, they might cook the prototypes and do trial plating to show his staff how the dish should cooked and presented; and the team will do the cooking day-to-day.

Chefs do high-level business management (human resources, produce handling and buying, do PR,...) and that takes time, they are not superman, they need to sleep and rest.

If they have to cook or be in the kitchen, then they need to be there early in the day for lunch preparation, they need to be there in the evening up to late because client will usually leave dinner at around midnight-ish; it is impossible to keep that schedule.

They will even be traveling to their other restaurants or do special appearances at food festivals around the world.

For example Pascal Barbot of the 3 star L'Astrance in Paris will be in Montréal for the Omnivore festival this week-end, so he will not be in Paris to "cook" or handle vip clients (in that case, maybe the restaurant is closed in august, I don't know).

(*) All restaurants are business, but 3 star michelin are the top of the pyramid.

It's not a bad question. You can always ask, you're a customer, no harm done in asking. Asking or assuming that he/she will personally cook your food would be an entirely different matter.

The Chef does not do Everything.

Just approach it from a different direction: If The Chef thinks his kitchen is in good hands while absent, why shouldn't you? He/she is (presumably) more qualified to judge than you.

Quite simply,

"the chef is not there" ? "the taste is not the same"

seems to be a logical fallacy.

I suppose that could be true – if the food you ordered required special skills that we assume could only be replicated by the head chef. But I think that's unlikely to reflect reality.

The quality of the restaurant as a whole is more likely to hinge on factors such as recipes, ingredients, freshness, and preparation, as opposed to the abilities of one all-star performer. A kitchen staff can be trained.

It's an interesting question, though, and I've thought of a few analogies: Is a Broadway musical quite the same on a night when an understudy replaces the lead actress? Would you enjoy a concert by The Black Keys as much if they played with a substitute drummer? Is watching the San Antonio Spurs the same on a night when Tony Parker is sidelined by an injury?

Interesting questions. Assuming the understudy can hit all the right notes, though – assuming the drummer can keep time and add fills, and assuming the rest of the Spurs play to win – you are still likely to have an A-1 experience.

Similarly, if we assume the kitchen is staffed by competent professionals, the absence of a head chef is unlikely to affect the taste of a single meal on his or her night off.

That said, if the actress was your favorite actress, or if your sister dated Patrick Carney back when he was in high school and you really wanted to watch him play on stage, or if Tony Parker has been your favorite point guard for some time, then I suppose there would be a tinge of disappointment that you didn't get to watch exactly what you were hoping to see. C'est la vie!

If you happen to know something about the chef and you want to eat there on a day when he is on duty, I suppose there's nothing wrong with calling the restaurant ahead of time, inquiring about the head chef's schedule, and planning accordingly.

In a large restaurant with many staff the chef does not cook, they just tested, planned, and managed some stuff beforehand

You are buying their menu creations/themes, and their location, décor, and staff selection

Personally I would rather not have to work so hard (work less, earn less, spend less), and cook a nice meal for my family and friends at home with top quality ingredients