Is....is this a trap?

I have an example I want to post here but it's a live game, so I'll save it for a bit until I can share it without risking cheating.

I'm new to the game, I was taught by my grandad when I was 8 so I've known how all the pieces move for three decades but only this year (yes....after the queens gambit) have I started to study theory, openings, mating patterns etc. Finally after all these years I realise why I couldn't even beat the crappiest engine on the easiest setting...because literally all I knew was how each piece moved and nothing else.

Something that takes up a LOT of my time at the moment is looking at a move made by a more experienced, higher rated opponent that looks like a complete blunder. In the game that's ongoing at the moment, I was able to put the opposing queen into a trap where, as I saw it, the opponent's best choice was to capture either a bishop or a knight with the queen to reclaim material on her way out. 

Instead of using the queen to take a higher rated piece, my opponent simply made a central pawn capture (exd4), leaving me to capture the queen with a bishop (who will then be recaptured with axb6). So my opponent got an extra (and central) pawn for the move and can recapture after losing the queen, but their new pawn on d4 is immediately under attack with no protection.

I know this description of the game isn't going to help anybody give tactical advice (which is intentional - I can share the game and get specific advice after it's ended) but what I'm really interested in is how do more experienced players go about studying or understanding a move that simply looks too good to be true? When you look at the board and can only see a big red blunder from your opponent, how do you reassure yourself (as best you can) that it's definitely soand that you're not wandering into a tra?

I spent a lot of time on the magnus trainer app, and he seems to be particularly in love with GMs who sacrifice queens like it's nothing, so i think he's got me overthinking things a bit now...

You could actually have trapped the queen in the same way as early as move 10 mate, so your opponent definitely didn't realise this was possible.

What you describe is I think a bit of experience and also how well you can analyse. If your opponent makes a move and you immediately think 'blunder!' try not to get too excited. Be very suspicious of receiving gifts, and of course the stronger your opponent, the more suspicious you should be. All of us have lost games where we fall into a trap...it's annoying! Painful experience teaches caution. Also some experience of certain situations. For example, there are times when you can win a pawn on the edge of the board. A free pawn is a free pawn right? And your opponent doesn't seem to be threatening anything...but it may turn out that certain threats can be generated long term, or that your position becomes extremely awkward to play because you spent time moving a piece away from the action to capture what turns out to be a pretty insignificant pawn. We're talking 10 moves later, past the point you can analyse to. These 'poisoned pawns' are named so for a reason and the more experience you gain the better feel you have for when they can/should be captured and when not.

After that it comes down to the strength of your analysis - if you play it through over and over again and don't see why your opponents move is anything but a mistake then that's all you can do. Eventually you just have to say 'OK, I don't see it so show me'. Even if you have suspicions you have to trust yourself if you don't see what the problem is, otherwise all you have left is self doubt and opponents can take liberties by playing dubious stuff that you don't challenge. 

yeah. It comes down to the strength of your analysis. Everyone gets this wrong some of the time, but all you can do is calculate your opponent's options to the best of your ability. If you cant see a tactic, take the material and hold your breath. Maybe they made a mistake or maybe they're Magnus Carlsen 😁. Time will tell. Word of warning. It is unusual for intermediate or higher rated players to hang material (excluding time pressure). I've just finished a game where I seemingly hung my bishop in front of my opponents queen, it was defended indirectly by the threat of a knight fork which he failed to notice and resigned shortly after. BTW there is a difference between a trap and tactical defence. With tactical defense you are making a sound move that improves your position irrespective of whether your opponent sees the threat. If the move is only to set a trap, then it is 'hope(ful) chess' and a waisted move if the bait is not taken.

I took a look at the game in question and I have a relevant observation about the move you're asking about, but I'd rather not make it while the game is in progress.  Hope you'll hit me up after the fact though!

Thanks strangemover and Mark, some really useful advice there! Not come across poison pawns yet so that's one to read up on!

Sholomsimon and paleo - I'll post the full game up here when complete. It's still an interesting and fairly tight game so the learning lesson may have been it wasn't a blunder after all! 

I can safely say any opponent under 1200 is capable of blundering routinely. so please don't assume they are so much better then you that they can't. second my rule of thumb is to make them prove it isn't a blunder if I can't see why it isn't. though I have heard better players than me say if someone offers you a free pawn take it but be suspicious of a second free pawn. usually better to review your piece activity than to just take it.

OK!  So it looks like your game is finished.  I'll offer my thoughts.

I believe the game in question is this one:

Capturing the pawn on d4 seems pretty smart to me.  On move 15, the black queen can capture three pieces itself.

1) 15.  ... Qxa5 (capturing the attacking bishop) leads to 16. Qxa5, which puts the white queen in an aggressive position on black's king side and leaves white up six pawns in material.

2) 15. ... Qxb2 yields 16. Kxb2, which leaves white up eight pawns and somewhat compromises white's king safety, but it doesn't matter because there's just nothing to follow up with on that side of the board.

3) 15. ... Qxd4 results in 16. Nxd4 exd4, which leaves white up five pawns and able to force a rook trade with 17. Rxe8  Rxe8, not great for black after losing a queen.

The alternative black chose, 15. ... exd4  16. Bxb6 Nxb6, leaves white up five pawns, same as the best queen capture, prevents an immediate rook trade, and also forces white to use a move to get the bishop on c4 to b3 or d3 to save it, or else lose the c4 bishop on the next move with no more than a pawn to show for it.  So, this move is definitely best of the unpleasant alternatives for black.

Did I miss anything important?  (since my rating is pretty low, it's quite likely!)

Edit:  I don't see the knight capture.  Wrong game?  Seems to line up with your post pretty well otherwise, though!

That was my favorite Star Trek episode!

I know the ligma part, but not the elasker, so... what's the elasker-ligma maneuver?

Emanuel Lasker was World Chess Champion from 1894 to 1921.  If BlunderousWilliam's mom knew him, she must be getting on in years.

Wow, thanks! Was just going to post this here and you're already on the case! 

Yes, you got the right game and your analysis here is really helpful! 

As I said in the original post, there have been a few games where I was sat there staring at the board trying to work out if it was a blunder or a trap and actually what I ended up referring to here was a game where a move looked more "blunderful" than it really was. Makes this discussion much more interesting as I can now see from your comments where I mis-analysed an opponent's move. Would have been a boring thread if everybody just told me i was right from the start...

The knight comment btw...my original thinking at the time was that I would take the D pawn with my knight in move 17, but then what I forgot to consider as I was working out my moves was the 16...rxb6 recapture which then attacked my bishop and would have turned 17. rxd4 into a nasty pin I think? So my strategy had some pretty big holes at this point.

So despite managing to grind it out to the end, clearly I misread that move I posted about here and was underestimating my opponent a little bit (although in fairness I did estimate them enough to believe they were likely doing much better than I thought).

Ashton -- the great thing is: you're analyzing your games and thinking about them.  That's how you learn.  Always self-analyze before you bring in the engine to help you analyze.

Ashtondayrider:  Hey, congrats on winning the game!  And like others have said, if something feels trappy, no harm in using a little extra time (if you have it) to think that through before playing the move.

Congrats for winning the game.

ahahahahhahahahaahahahahahhahhaahhahahahhahahahahha

comedy.