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.
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.
If you make a threat to a kn, on let's say queen-side meanwhile your opponent is mating you with other pieces on the king-size in 3 moves. Is the initiative is with you or the other?
Also would you say your threat was a blunder or not?
a not blundering threat move could leave a weak square or piece behind... therefore may not be a blunder but a mistake... or an inaccuracy... a threat that is easily seen and blocked... is but a wasted tempo... in which case you would not gain, but lose the initiative...
And until they do punish that play and take it apart, they still have the initiative. No one said the same person had to always have it, it could change over the course of the game.
marvin hagler v sugar ray leonard, yes? to the layperson marvin had the initiative, pushing and attacking... but most of his punches missing or hitting leather... leonard saving energy, then countering hard...US hero yes?
marvin hagler v sugar ray leonard, yes? to the layperson marvin had the initiative, pushing and attacking... but most of his punches missing or hitting leather... leonard saving energy, then countering hard...US hero yes?
I pushed the wrong tab.
In general, every position is not the same and rule meet exceptions. Boxing is not the same as chess. For example, you could punch back while your opponent is doing the same, but in chess you have to wait for your turn.
So let's stick with chess, only initiative. Can we make a rule of it, my statement, or not? Of course there are exceptions all the time.
of course, any rule has exception, and no metaphor is exact... just a general idea. what about the line before? a threat for threats sake? might not be a straight blunder... but could be a wasted tempo or inaccurate move... handing initiative straight to opponent...
Are you suggesting to make a new statement: An accurate threatful move is required to have the initiative. How about this one?
My feeling on it, and somebody may have posted this already, is it's when u r able to steadily make threats while pursuing ur plans that cause the opponent to have to respond to ur threats that cause them to abandon or slow down their own plans.
Do you agree with the following statement:
An accurate threatful move is required to have the initiative.
My feeling on it, and somebody may have posted this already, is it's when u r able to steadily make threats while pursuing ur plans that cause the opponent to have to respond to ur threats that cause them to abandon or slow down their own plans.
Do you agree with the following statement:
An accurate threatful move is required to have the initiative.
No, as it means that two players misplaying are playing a game in which it is impossible for either to hold the initiative, which doesn't make sense. The meaning of accurate threatful move becomes very shaky at that point.
My feeling on it, and somebody may have posted this already, is it's when u r able to steadily make threats while pursuing ur plans that cause the opponent to have to respond to ur threats that cause them to abandon or slow down their own plans.
Do you agree with the following statement:
An accurate threatful move is required to have the initiative.
No, as it means that two players misplaying are playing a game in which it is impossible for either to hold the initiative, which doesn't make sense. The meaning of accurate threatful move becomes very shaky at that point.
What statement would you suggest? We want to come to an accurate statement that most of the time is correct.
What I said earlier, the person who is making threats the other person has to respond to has the initiative. It's already been stated.
not a case of either or... a position can be about even, with neither side having the initiative... and what about Carlsen a few days back... played 2qh5! is that an accurate threatful move?
Then the result of the discussion is inconclusive. Can we agree to disagree?
Initiative is the ability to impose your own plan, and force your opponent to respond to your plan. For example, if your position has offensive buildup going on, and your opponent feels compelled to make defensive moves and try to defuse the situation, you have initiative.
I like this term "imposing your plan"
The initiative means a lot in chess and both players start fighting for it since the opening. Once the pieces are already developed it is the time to start creating threats until one side forces the other to adopt a defensive position. In order to take over the initiative, we must seek for active moves that create immediate threats.
Also I like:
active moves that create immediate threats.
no, if the result is inconclusive... you have not proven the point, so... i am right and you are wrong...
My point from starting this thread was to break down "initiative" in a few chess steps. I was not looking to say I am right. I want to achieve those few chess steps.
well you haven't, so you lose the debate by default...
I still want to achieve those few chess steps if possible. It's good to see you have so much confidence in your knowledge though.
The move doesn't need to be accurate, initiative has nothing to do with accuracy at all. The person who is making the threats and forcing the other guy to respond to them has the initiative, no exceptions. It can be lost if the other player takes it from them, but that doesn't change the definition.
The move doesn't need to be accurate, initiative has nothing to do with accuracy at all. The person who is making the threats and forcing the other guy to respond to them has the initiative, no exceptions. It can be lost if the other player takes it from them, but that doesn't change the definition. >>>
It seems meaningless to have an initiative when it doesn't at least potentially lead to a win. The big picture is that the person who's winning always has the initiative. It forces the losing player to try to do something about it and occasionally that something might include forcing moves. Taken to its logical conclusion and reducing to the absurd, anyone making an exchange has the initiative if the other one has to recapture, and yet the exchange might be bad for the person initiating it. So no, this is logically incorrect.
oh right, so if you just throw pieces in a wild aimless attack... you can say wow, i have the initiative! until opponent counter kicks your butt and wins... study some of the indian defences... you calmly let your opponent have the centre, have the initiative, then undermine them and counter...
Looks like my definition works out then. Glad to see you've found examples to agree with me.
But personally I don't think someone can be said to have gained any initiative if it's purely temporary and the nett result is the ultimate loss of the game.
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.