Psychological warfare

How often do you try to play your opponents psychologically?

I don't mean in terms of tactics like blocking their attack, but rather simply playing a move to mess with your opponent's head?  For some reason, when there are two ways to do something, one is less obvious/more "artistic"/more "trappy", than the other, I like to go for the less obvious idea...if they threaten a piece, I immediately think of countering with a threat of my own rather than moving it out of the way/protecting it, hoping that I might tilt them by playing something completely different from what they were expecting.

Other times, I will purposely use misdirection to try to manipulate my opponents, such as overprotecting a particular piece that I don't care as much about just so my opponent thinks it is more important than it actually is (or start setting up a tactic I have no intention of following through with, just so my opponent will start looking at the wrong part of the board).

Are these ideas common in higher level chess?  Or is this really something that is only done at lower levels?

@1 
"I don’t believe in psychology. I believe in good moves." - Fischer

No.

"I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves." - Bobby Fischer.

And another Fischer quote, when a reporter claimed that Taimanov, Larsen and Petrosian had all seemed to play below their full strength in their WCC Candidates Matches against him :

"People have been playing 'below their full strength' against me for fifteen years."

@1
"When you sit down to play a game you should think only about the position, but not about the opponent. Whether chess is regarded as a science, or an art, or a sport, all the same psychology bears no relation to it and only stands in the way of real chess." - Capablanca

That what I call the 'lucille ball' move.

Its pretty lame of course...but lets say you are playing like 1000 pts higher...and getting desperate.

If you resign shortly , I dont think anyone cares...its the fools who think that they drag the games on, then dont hope you were paying attention that they moved in the last sec.

"Other times, I will purposely use misdirection to try to manipulate my opponents, such as overprotecting a particular piece that I don't care as much about just so my opponent thinks it is more important than it actually is ..." I wouldn't regard this as pyschology. Although offbeat openings may play into this point you are trying to make here I think.

The question of what one can do in an OTB game is circumscribed by the laws of match play in an area and also what one's own code of sportsmanship is.

I recently made a move in an OTB that  was nearly a perpetual and offered a draw immediately. My opponent accepted. I said to my opponent after that I made the offer straight away lest he analyse it etc. I may sometimes offer a draw if I don't want one, tempting my opponent to overstretch. If the player likes to win at all costs, this might be useful.

Overall though, psychology is a small element in the game. My league in recent times has abandoned the adjournment. There were often psychological elements in this scenario depending on whether it was a home or an away game.

I would never distract or try to put my opponent off in any way.

Whenever I'm tempted to play those little games, I just picture my opponent looking at the screen shaking his head disgustedly, fully aware of what I'm doing. Then I don't. 

But then again, I haven't won 18 games in a row. 

There's nothing wrong with playing a move which objectively not the best move, but is practically more challenging and time consuming for your opponent. However, if you're thinking of offering a bad sacrifice, you've got to ask who you're most likely to be fooling.

Yep....the "best" move might be the move that can't hurt you, but may not win the game for you. Another move may have a significant chance of destroying your opponent, but with some risk of destroying you. You may choose the "riskier" move, given that your opponent is an 800 level and you believe that only maybe one in four at that level would see the right response. If your opponent was a 2000, say, the move wouldn't be "risky", it would likely be suicide.  All these considerations, I believe, are part of the game. If you make the riskier move, you do so recognizing that it could cost you the game, but you are willing to take that gamble. And if you do lose, you congratulate your opponent and give him kudos for outsmarting you. You don't take the victory away by blaming your loss on your poor decision. 

There's an interview out there where Carlsen talks about playing without sleep and drunk. Upon analysing the matches his moves weren't very good but they spooked his opponents enough to win matches. So I think we can safely say that psychology is important right to the top of the Chess ladder.

Magnus Carlsen 

I like using psychological warfare all the time. One time i was playing in a live tournament in a real life against real human players. I was eating a $5 footlong Subway sandwich and the mustard starting dripping on my shirt because they out too much mustard on it. Well anyway the mustard spilled from the sandwich onto my shirt. It distracted my opponent because he started laughing at me because the mustard had dropped onto my shirt and made a big mess. Then the very next move while the opponent was distracted,he made a big blunder and I then won the game a couple moves later. So it worked. So the lesson I learned is that for investing $5 I could increase my chances of winning as long as I asked for extra mustard.

The better you know your opponent, the easier using psychological tricks.