Typically, the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it. Accepting a poisoned pawn has a poor reputation.
What is the difference between gambit and poison pawn

The term "poisoned Pawn" refers to a Pawn that can be taken "for free", not one that is guarded. So no, that Knight wasn't "a poisoned piece". It was just a bad exchange.


Just like in sicilian najdorf. Isn't it? But nobody play than line in my level. Our game capturing pawn is more like hanging pawn after few opening moves.



But what you should be learning are gambits.
There are a ton of different gambits, so the odds are your opponent doesn’t know how to play them.

I today almost trapped his queen.

But what you should be learning are gambits.
There are a ton of different gambits, so the odds are your opponent doesn’t know how to play them.
Yes, gambit are fun.

Sometimes if their intuition works, it can be dangerous

This is the most common queen trap if they take the poisoned pawn.
The queen look trapped only after just one capture. I don't think it is a poison pawn variation.

A gambit pawn is when you offer up a pawn for some other advantage.
For example d4 d5 ; c4 dxc where white hopes to exploit the better central control.
A poisoned pawn is where taking it puts a vital piece out of the game allowing the other side to typically chase a mating attack.
I suppose if the capture is by pawn it gets called gambit and poison if it gets captured by a piece.
I will appreciate you if you share something you know. It will be even better if players from all rating range come here and give their own description to this important difference.