[fisf]

No, this is not really what this is about. But the article is terrible in conveying this -- actually I find the comparison with poker to be very inept.

This is less about playing mindtricks and bluffing, but more 'mundane'.

I.e. a decent player will know all the good mainlines of popular openings, and end up in 'comfortable' positions (among other things due to computer analysis).

The metagame is to prepare a non-garbage sideline, that your opponent is not so familiar with. Nobody at a high rating plays 'questionable' variations on purpose, in order to bluff. The resulting positions would be much too punishing.

[hatha]

The article already mentions the cheating accusations surrounding Niemann so I won't touch on those, however there is an interesting example of him explaining this type of move in one of his post game interviews. The move is Qg3 from Alireza vs Niemann in the 2022 Sinquefield Cup.

Post-game thoughts from the players:

Inteviewer: "Let me pull you back; so you didn't understand the position, and so you still felt like you were scared to go into a piece-up situation?"

Alireza: "Yeah so, I just trusted him. (he shrugs) I just wanted to make a move.. and play a bit more you know (laughing)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT9orNSgk5w&t=55s

Niemann: "You have to understand, when I play the move Qg3, this is a purely pyschological move."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJZuT-_kij0&t=780s

Whether or not Niemann did cheat over the board, this shows that even top players can be susceptible to this kind of bluff.

[lupire]

I think part of what frustrates (some) GMs about Niemann, is that he is playing like Kasparov and them from before supercomputers. Modern GMs think they all know everything, since they have so much computer training, so everyone is afraid to bluff, which means a bluffer can win again. The meta has cycled back.