See for example the following short game.
As you can see, I made a whole string of appalling blunders. And yet, after 21. Bxh6+, my opponent resigned, yes resigned, in a totally winning position! I can only assume he was fooled by the boldness of my blunderful combination (20. Rxg7+ and 21. Bxh6+) and thought he was about to lose his Queen, when in fact the simple 21. ... Qxh6 was all he needed to play.
This bluffing sometimes works, but you'll be in deep trouble if your opponents ever learn the proper response - Which is to look at the offered material, and try to determine whether it's a sound sac or a blunder. If you can't see that it's a sound sac, then assume it's a blunder and take the material.
Another example:
In poker the way to bluff often deals with the scary nature of the community cards + your play leading up to the cards + huge bets which lead to intense pressure on the opponent.
In chess you can try to bluff. However, you need to try and set up similar coniditions.
1- You often want to bluff people who are equal or lower rated than you.
This tactical often works very well against lower rated competition. Many lower rated players go into the match feeling as if they can't compete with you. 99% of the time when you face a stronger opponent or much higher rated one you often get the feeling of intemidation. This same intemidation is often shared by players who are rated lower than you and are facing you.
2- Your piece placement!
Yes, you are bluffing! However, you have to try to make your bluff believe-able as much as possible! If you only have 1 piece around your opponents king the bluff/sacrifice might not put enough pressure on them to mess up.
Bascially you might do a sacrifice with lets say 3 or 4 pieces around your opponents king. The sacrifice may not be sound. However, it is so scary looking and complicated your opponent might feel as if you got them crushed.
Appearance is key!
3- Bets & Time!
In poker, you often are able to do huge bets which cause your opponents extreme pressure.
In chess, you don't have the chance to make any bets to cause pressure!
However, what you do have is time!
A clock ticking down + sacrifices happening in a position can give extreme pressure on an opponent.
Similar to as if you was making huge bets!
Watching your opponents time can be a huge key factor.
Perhaps you can try to take advantage of there time by doing a sacrifice which may cause them to freak out in a moment when they don't have enough time to look at all the complications of the sacrifice.
All in All that is how I would play a bluff!
Here is an example:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/pulling-off-a-sick-bluff
The above link + game explain everything I said very nicely!
1- My opponent was lower rated!
2- My opponent was low on time!
3- My sacrifice came with a follow up which looked scary!
This bluffing sometimes works, but you'll be in deep trouble if your opponents ever learn the proper response - Which is to look at the offered material, and try to determine whether it's a sound sac or a blunder. If you can't see that it's a sound sac, then assume it's a blunder and take the material.
Thanks, I absolutely agree with you. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. But the point I'm trying to make is that at my level, both my opponent and I lack the skills to properly evaluate the position, and psychology does often come into play in terms of each of us making the assumption that the other player knows what he's doing, which affects the moves we choose to make in reply.
Let me just clarify that I'm not trying to advocate bluffing as a deliberate strategy. What I'm trying to suggest is that bold play can, in practice, be successful whether or not the moves are themselves sound, since either:
(a) the moves are sound; or
(b) if unsound, the opponent may nevertheless be dissuaded from making, or may simply fail to make, the correct reply.
Yes, this is brilliant chess psychology upon which you stumbled; everybody out there playing proper perfect engine chess protecting calculating ha it's all overrated and so it objectivity, too. Good for you, I thoroughed enjoyed you having shared this epiphany. Great spirit and wisdom in your post Mr. Grint; thanks.
and I thought this was going to be about a game of chess played on January 6. Go figure.
In poker the way to bluff often deals with the scary nature of the community cards + your play leading up to the cards + huge bets which lead to intense pressure on the opponent.
In chess you can try to bluff. However, you need to try and set up similar coniditions.
1- You often want to bluff people who are equal or lower rated than you.
This tactical often works very well against lower rated competition. Many lower rated players go into the match feeling as if they can't compete with you. 99% of the time when you face a stronger opponent or much higher rated one you often get the feeling of intemidation. This same intemidation is often shared by players who are rated lower than you and are facing you.
2- Your piece placement!
Yes, you are bluffing! However, you have to try to make your bluff believe-able as much as possible! If you only have 1 piece around your opponents king the bluff/sacrifice might not put enough pressure on them to mess up.
Bascially you might do a sacrifice with lets say 3 or 4 pieces around your opponents king. The sacrifice may not be sound. However, it is so scary looking and complicated your opponent might feel as if you got them crushed.
Appearance is key!
3- Bets & Time!
In poker, you often are able to do huge bets which cause your opponents extreme pressure.
In chess, you don't have the chance to make any bets to cause pressure!
However, what you do have is time!
A clock ticking down + sacrifices happening in a position can give extreme pressure on an opponent.
Similar to as if you was making huge bets!
Watching your opponents time can be a huge key factor.
Perhaps you can try to take advantage of there time by doing a sacrifice which may cause them to freak out in a moment when they don't have enough time to look at all the complications of the sacrifice.
All in All that is how I would play a bluff!
Here is an example:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/pulling-off-a-sick-bluff
The above link + game explain everything I said very nicely!
1- My opponent was lower rated!
2- My opponent was low on time!
3- My sacrifice came with a follow up which looked scary!
Thank you, excellent insight!
1. I've not considered it before, but I would tend to agree with you that you cannot successfully bluff a stronger player, neither in chess nor in poker.
2. Yes, it's easy to make mistakes when the position is scary or complicated.
3.Yes you're right, time pressure can be an important factor.
I liked the game you posted!
and I thought this was going to be about a game of chess played on January 6. Go figure.
Perhaps I should have referred to it as my "Road to Damascus" moment.
<Jonnie303> you are right. There is always that balance between how deeply you try to analyze a move, and how much time you take for it.
My rule of thumb goes, that if I see an interesting idea (sacrifice, attack, initiative etc) and can't find a way to refute it within a reasonable time (as much as I'm willing to take on that move) - I PLAY it and then see how it pans out.
This is really a hard and fast rule for me.
In doing so I'm actually following a recommendation by a very strong player (can't remember whom) which I once saw - and that player wrote that this approach leads to learning.
Why?
Because that "provocative" move is unpredictable for you - you don't know how it will pan out.
so you play it - and then you learn - by seeing how your opponent answers, by being forced to keep developing it OTB, by later analyzing it, by having other players and/or chess software comment on it
And then you gain experience and you learn
So next time you'll be in a better position to evaluate how such a move is likely to pan out...
And so you grow.
And by the way - you're not really bluffing. You're trying out an idea that looks interesting and attractive - rather than depress yourself by thinking for too long, then not playing it because "probably after the game it will be found that it was not perfect".
You will see that as you gain more experience, your "hunch" as to when to launch that attacking move, will more and more frequently lead you to actually the best move.
Keep growing!
Yes, this is brilliant chess psychology upon which you stumbled; everybody out there playing proper perfect engine chess protecting calculating ha it's all overrated and so it objectivity, too. Good for you, I thoroughed enjoyed you having shared this epiphany. Great spirit and wisdom in your post Mr. Grint; thanks.
Thank you!
and I thought this was going to be about a game of chess played on January 6. Go figure.
Perhaps I should have referred to it as my "Road to Damascus" moment.
or Blinded by the Light.
You came about it in a different way, but you realized much earlier than I did that the objective and the practical evaluation can be different, and that sometimes it's better to be practical.
Not that you should ever give up trying to improve your ability to play objectively best moves, but yes, I think this is an important realization 
And by the way - you're not really bluffing. You're trying out an idea that looks interesting and attractive -
Thanks for your comments!
Yes, you're absolutely right, that's exactly what I'm doing, I'm trying out ideas which look interesting and attractive, even if I can't work out the full consequences. That's actually a much better description than to call it "bluffing".
Hopefully I can learn from experience in the way you suggest!
You will, just give it time - and don't forget to have fun while you're doing it.
What you have actually discovered is Attacking Chess. You are going for the initiative and offense which makes your opponents respond to your moves and forces them to find the best response and expend their time and energy. ... you will be able to make even an expert sweat in no time.
You have definitely stumbled upon a winning playing style and you should keep it up.
Yes my playing style has definitely become more Attacking. I'm not so sure I'll ever be able to make an expert sweat, but I'll keep working at it!
... the objective and the practical evaluation can be different, and sometimes it's better to be practical.
Not that you should ever give up trying to improve your ability to play objectively best moves, but yes, I think this is an important realization
That's a good distinction, between the objective and practical evaluation. Sometimes moves can win against another human player - certainly at my level, anyway - whereas they would lose if played against a computer.
I am also still trying hard to improve my ability to play objectively best moves!
Just stumbled upon this interesting insight about taking chances, and how it's improved your rating. I tend to agree with your article, spending a whole lot of time just doesn't work and oftentimes still leads to a flawed move, at least in my games it does. I've also found that being more aggressive, will sometimes freak out the opponent, and can lead to blunders. Thanks for an interesting post. Ray
Ok so let me start out by making it clear I'm a very average chess player.
I'm going to talk about my experience in 10 min Blitz, where I've seen a sizeable jump in my rating over the past 2-3 months from around 1200, where I'd been stuck for a year or more, to around 1350. And this is almost entirely down to a sudden realisation I had, a chess epiphany if you will, which has improved my results beyond measure. It's nothing startling, and it's certainly not down to any newly acquired chess knowledge, but instead it's down to a change in mindset. I wanted to share it in the hope that others might wish to comment.
It's simply this: at my level, I've found that games can often be won by bluffing. I now no longer try to play "perfect" chess, and I no longer assume that my opponent will play "perfect" chess in reply. I no longer try to analyse positions and potential moves by assuming that my opponent will necessarily find the strongest possible moves. I came to realise that I'd been trying too hard to play "perfect" chess, trying to make moves which were both strong and sound, as if my opponent was some kind of master player. Which I came to realize was stupid, because:
(a) At my level, I'm totally incapable of that kind of "perfect" analysis; and
(b) Since my opponent is also at my level, he too is incapable of master-level analysis.
And how has this helped improve my frequency of winning? Well, quite simply, I now feel no hesitation in playing bold-looking sacrifices or combinations, which previously I'd have avoided because I wasn't sure they were sound - and indeed in most cases subsequent analysis has shown these sacrifices or combinations to be, in fact, deeply flawed blunders. In other words, my moves were nothing more than a bluff.
So how have I managed to win games despite these blunders, these bluffs? I think it's like this: my opponent sees me make a bold move and assumes, consciously or subconsciously, that I must know what I'm doing and that there must be some hidden depth to my moves or my strategy. (Which in fact there isn't, I've more likely simply blundered.) So my opponent eschews the "obvious" reply (the correct, strong reply) and instead finds another move (invariably weaker) hoping to derail my "plan".
In other words, it's like a bluff in poker. And to put it in a nutshell, I've found that, at my level at least, bluffing on the chessboard can often win.
I'll post a couple of example games to illustrate. I'd be interested in any comments or observations.