Queen Trap idea refuted beautifully by Stockfish.

Here's my commentary on the game. I played the Black side and won a very nice game, but it turned out to be a refutable idea.

10. e3 d5 (This move doesn't harmoniously tie in with 9...
Qe7. e5 is more natural, but Black's plan is to open the Queenside where White's king resides.)

13. Bb5 (White incorrectly goes in for the win of a pawn by tactical means, but Black's activity on the Queenside more than compensates for this loss.)

17. Rdf1 Nc5 (The start of a plan to trap the queen, refuted very nicely by Stockfish with 18. Kd1!!)

18. Nd2 (White is now lost. Black will gain a significant material and activity edge in the imbalanced ending.)

(18. Kd1 Rd8 19. dxc5 Rxc5 20. Qa4 d4 {Black has greater activity for the piece due to the insecure King position, and The Rook on h1 basically being imaginary. Still, no trapped queen and the game continues with an approximately equal
position.)

Even if a queen is really trapped, that not always decides the game. If a player can get a rook and a piece for the queen, which equates about an exchange, then there may be compensation for it. We tend to think trapped queen = loss and end our calculation of that line, but that is not always true.

I agree, but it's more than the Queen in that position. It's a nice material edge, and White has a difficult time coordinating to defend everything. The point was that Kd1 is a very nice move to refute the idea.

Kd1 is a nice move, but very hard to find. By removing Kc1 from the same c-file as Qc6 white elimites the threat ...Rc5+. In real games probably much more situations of this kind occur, where we humand end tha line in our calculation with ... and the queen is trapped, while this is not necessarily the case.

i think it's pretty easy to find, you want to take the knight but then Rxc5 so you just get your king out of the way. certainly doesn't deserve the title of "beautiful" imo