Initiative can be viewed at through various levels of time, you can look at initiative in a single turn, a sequence of moves, the whole game, etc. The amount of time you view initiative through can determine who has it, a person may have initiative during one part of time but not another.
what criteria(s) determine initiative
Sort:
That's correct and in the context of a game the initiative can change hands but that would be due to an inaccuracy by the player who had the initiative, wouldn't it?
Optimissed wrote:
That's correct and in the context of a game the initiative can change hands but that would be due to an inaccuracy by the player who had the initiative, wouldn't it?
I see no reason why this would have to be the case. You can't always have the initiative, and sometimes you want to give it up for something else, such as material.
I'd call a decisive material advantage an initiative but one that is deferred. 
Anyway, it's all words.
In chess you can't give a specific explanation to most of the terms. The reason is that the variables of a position are so many that it's impossible one definition to cover all the cases.
As a general rule the ability to create threats and force your opponent in moves that leave his goals incomplete is what we call initiative. But what do I mean when I mean "leave his goals incomplete" and how we define his goals? Yes , that is what happens in chess , you attempt to answer one question and 2-3 more pop up , like the ancient Hydra.
I believe we all agree that one should have a threatful move to have the initiative. But we disagree on whether that move must be accurate and/or non-blunder.
Now if you could comment on that, it would be appreciated.
yall r gay
Adamolson123 wrote:
yall r gay
Please do not post unless it's relevant to the topic.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
joseph1000000 wrote:
In chess you can't give a specific explanation to most of the terms. The reason is that the variables of a position are so many that it's impossible one definition to cover all the cases.
As a general rule the ability to create threats and force your opponent in moves that leave his goals incomplete is what we call initiative. But what do I mean when I mean "leave his goals incomplete" and how we define his goals? Yes , that is what happens in chess , you attempt to answer one question and 2-3 more pop up , like the ancient Hydra.
I believe we all agree that one should have a threatful move to have the initiative. But we disagree on whether that move must be accurate and/or non-blunder.
Now if you could comment on that, it would be appreciated.
A blunder doesn't necessarilly lose the initiative. In fact it might even increase it.
Must the move be accurate?
joseph1000000 wrote:
What statement would you suggest? We want to come to an accurate statement that most of the time is correct.
How about a statement that is all the time correct? Initiative is the realm of strategy and is pretty well defined....maybe not 100% but 99.9999%.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
joseph1000000 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
joseph1000000 wrote:
In chess you can't give a specific explanation to most of the terms. The reason is that the variables of a position are so many that it's impossible one definition to cover all the cases.
As a general rule the ability to create threats and force your opponent in moves that leave his goals incomplete is what we call initiative. But what do I mean when I mean "leave his goals incomplete" and how we define his goals? Yes , that is what happens in chess , you attempt to answer one question and 2-3 more pop up , like the ancient Hydra.
I believe we all agree that one should have a threatful move to have the initiative. But we disagree on whether that move must be accurate and/or non-blunder.
Now if you could comment on that, it would be appreciated.
A blunder doesn't necessarilly lose the initiative. In fact it might even increase it.
Must the move be accurate?
Obviously if a blunder can retain the initiative , any move can.
Initiative is about creating threats. A move that threatens something might be a superficial "easy to parry" initiative but depending on your opponent's response it can become anything from long lasting initiative to winning advantage. That is why all this discussion is irrelevant. It's good moves that matter the most.
What if you are threatening a Kn but your opponent threatens you Q?
nighteyes1234 wrote:
joseph1000000 wrote:
What statement would you suggest? We want to come to an accurate statement that most of the time is correct.
How about a statement that is all the time correct? Initiative is the realm of strategy and is pretty well defined....maybe not 100% but 99.9999%.
I intended
joseph1000000 wrote:
nighteyes1234 wrote:
joseph1000000 wrote:
What statement would you suggest? We want to come to an accurate statement that most of the time is correct.
How about a statement that is all the time correct? Initiative is the realm of strategy and is pretty well defined....maybe not 100% but 99.9999%.
I intended
I intended to break the word initiative into chess steps, possibly. One that most of agree is "threatful move". Could there be more? That is the point.
fairytalebeast wrote:
maybe if you ever shut your mouth and played some game you might be able to get the initiative? sensemake
Resorting to nasty language..
You definitely are a fairy.
joseph1000000 wrote:
I intended to break the word initiative into chess steps, possibly. One that most of agree is "threatful move". Could there be more? That is the point.
Initiative gets simplified to tell you there is more to chess than material...there is 'direct' and 'indirect' strategy. Throw out 'threat' and substitute in 'deterrence'. Both sides have an initiative to start with actually, but chessplayers erode the meaning and make it the indirect "time".
Example: Happy Hulk is in the center of the room munching down steaks and InNOut burgers. His initiative comes from deterrence. You mouth off to him and then you are unconscious...thats direct deterrence. But you have indirect deterrence. You just saw the movie Flash so you think you have a 'time' indirect deterrence that negates his direct 'swipe'. You both have initiative. In reality though, you never have unlimited asymmetry potential. Now you are tired and cant run as fast. Now you have options but no deterrence. Now you are flung out of this world.
nighteyes1234 wrote:
joseph1000000 wrote:
I intended to break the word initiative into chess steps, possibly. One that most of agree is "threatful move". Could there be more? That is the point.
Initiative gets simplified to tell you there is more to chess than material...there is 'direct' and 'indirect' strategy. Throw out 'threat' and substitute in 'deterrence'. Both sides have an initiative to start with actually, but chessplayers erode the meaning and make it the indirect "time".
Example: Happy Hulk is in the center of the room munching down steaks and InNOut burgers. His initiative comes from deterrence. You mouth off to him and then you are unconscious...thats direct deterrence. But you have indirect deterrence. You just saw the movie Flash so you think you have a 'time' indirect deterrence that negates his direct 'swipe'. You both have initiative. In reality though, you never have unlimited asymmetry potential. Now you are tired and cant run as fast. Now you have options but no deterrence. Now you are flung out of this world.
Many good comments. I learned a few things from some of you. Thanks
I think this would be a good point to close this thread. Initiative is determined by a threat. That and it can be exchanged for other advantages.
This was supposed to be a learning experience, but some are looking for other reasons. Good luck all.
Jan 7, 2019
0
#78
Im amazed its taken 5 pages, and 96 posts to explain what the initiative in chess is....then again...im not that surprised.
IMBacon wrote:
Im amazed its taken 5 pages, and 96 posts to explain what the initiative in chess is....then again...im not that surprised.
No. Not just initiative. This teaches also that there is a lot of trash talking from people who don't get the point.
People tell a lot about themselves when they talk!
Maybe it is meaningless to have the initiative, since it might not lead to a win, that is completely possible. The person who is winning doesn't always have the initiative, sometimes they are just riding out the storm until they can take back the initiative, but they have a material advantage that will ride them to victory once they get it.
And yes, anyone who is making an exchange automatically has the initiative for the turn, that is logically sound. It may not be particularly helpful, or hold out for the rest of the game, but for that moment in the game, it was theirs. Seems like my definition is logically sound. Initiative, like any other trait, such as material advantage, can be wasted or rendered meaningless with poor use in game.
People discuss the initiative because they have found ways to create and convert it into a win, it doesn't just magically do it all by itself. You can have all the initiative you like, you can still lose the game. You still have to solve how to convert your initiative into material advantage or a checkmate pattern, etc.