what criteria(s) determine initiative

Inititiave is self explanatory, thanks for asking!

From my perspective,  a new learner, one could always learn a new thing. That is one never stops learning. 

You have not provided any input yet. Haha. 

It does usually stop stupid questions. 

Now,  you are being rude.  Since you are such a not-stupid person try to express your chess knowledge an answer that question in a positive way,  if you can,  like a few others who did the same. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_(chess)

https://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/initiative

I'm sorry for pasting links. My composed opinions could be misunderstood. I'm glad you ask a relevant question other than openings.

I am discovering Chess Theory and the way to learn is sometimes to ask questions,  because there are others who have more knowledge than me. 

There is nothing to be sorry about.  What are the links about?

The fun thing about chess is you can always trade. You can trade initiative for material, then trade that for space, then trade that for pawn structure, then use that to win a technical endgame.

Or at some point during that process you trade what you have for a crazy sacrificial attack, or anything in between.

Ok most positions aren't that flexible, but this sort of exchanging is endlessly fun to try and figure out during a game. Sometimes to get the best value you have to do something right away. Sometimes to get the best value you have to be patient.

Good point.  I think I have covered your point with including "non-blunder" move in the definition of initiative in addition to threatful move. 

You have just listed a few of facets of the game. That is why I have grown more and more interested to chess. 

Obviously, you play a lot. Chess is very intriguing. Isn't it?

It is very nice to read your note. Good for you. 

Why does it have to be a non-blundering move? I see no reason you couldn't still have the initiative even if you misplay. You could still put up forcing moves, even ones that eventually do weaken your position, from what I could tell. I don't see why pushing for initiative has to always be a good thing, the earlier quote references initiative as being positive "with all other things being equal" so perhaps a failure in another category can cause you to have the initiative while still blundering. As a terrible chess player who faces people as bad as me, I quite often do not have the initiative but simply defend and parry until my opponent screws themselves over and hands me the win, they could still force my moves for a time while losing power until my superior a strength in other areas catches up and I can take back the initiative and win. 

You speak from experience,  which is good. But ideally,  if you play with a perfect opponent and you blunder you lose initiative. On the other hand,  with others who make mistake then your blunder just might match his/her blunder then you keep your initiative that way. 

That's the point. But in practice you might have a point but I do not think so.

Who says a blunder loses initiative? You may have instead gained initiative but lost material and the net value ends up being a blunder. It is entirely possible to have forcing moves lead nowhere, options go to nothing, it happens. 

Why not? We do that with just about everything else. Anything you measure is put over a specific period of time, so yes, it is entirely possible to gain initiative in one move and lose the game later. If I lose a rook, I took a material loss in that turn. If I used it to take a queen, I had a net gain over those two turns. If I lost the game at the end, well.... darn. The way you say it, anyone who loses the game could not have possibly gained initiative at any point during it, which doesn't make any sense at all. What if you dominated the game and then accidentally let your opponent checkmate you with something easily preventable like a backrow rook mate? Could you not have been gaining initiative all the other moves? 

I think people are too busy trying to say control in this area=you winning the game while ignoring that there are numerous things going on in the game and even if you hang on to one if you screw up elsewhere it can still cost you. It all adds up eventually. 

Both of you have good points,  now I see more clearly. But if we take take my statement as a rule then you should know there is exception to each rule. Remember I used if. 

My statement was that a non-blundering, threatful move determines who has the initiative. My statement  was work of all who contributed. 

Now, tell me if that statement could be a rule, with exceptions. 

I think if you removed the non-blunder, your definition would be more accurate. Those who are creating threats, setting the pace of the game, having the most impact on what moves are made in the game, that player has the initiative.