Talking about closing the thread isn't sufficient. Can you find a way to do it? 
what criteria(s) determine initiative
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
Initiative has to be more than that. It isn't sufficient to force an opponent to respond. You only have the initiative when your opponent struggles to respond soundly.
Initiative has to be more than that. It isn't sufficient to force an opponent to respond. You only have the initiative when your opponent struggles to respond soundly.
No, it really doesn't have to be more than that.
Stop trying to equate initiative with winning the game, there is not a connection by definition, only by gameplay and utilization. It's already been stated and shown the person with the initiative can be losing the game and still have it.
Optimissed wrote:
Talking about closing the thread isn't sufficient. Can you find a way to do it?
I am new to this things, that is why I asked the same question, mainly because I don't like so many negativities. Other wise there seems to be more to be discussed.
Jan 8, 2019
0
#85
joseph1000000 wrote:
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!
Welcome to the chess.com forums!
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I can tell you with certainty that people rarely talk about themselves.
I discussed the same thing with a professor I met in a trip in Prague and he agreed with me!
You'll be surprised!
The following is my understanding:
For tactical initiative, you need to have a threatful move that your opponent must respond to.
For strategic initiative, you need to impose your plan on your opponent, this must require forced responses from your opponent.
Jan 8, 2019
0
#88
joseph1000000 wrote:
The following is my understanding:
For tactical initiative, you need to have a threatful move that your opponent must respond to.
For strategic initiative, you need to impose your plan on your opponent, this must require forced responses from your opponent.
A forced series of moves are tactics.
IMBacon wrote:
joseph1000000 wrote:
The following is my understanding:
For tactical initiative, you need to have a threatful move that your opponent must respond to.
For strategic initiative, you need to impose your plan on your opponent, this must require forced responses from your opponent.
A forced series of moves are tactics.
DeirdreSkye
https://www.chess.com/bundles/web/images/sprites/flags-v3.80210ba3.png";);background-position:99.9% 33.3%;">
https://www.chess.com/bundles/web/images/sprites/flags-v3.80210ba3.png";);background-position:99.9% 33.3%;">
https://www.chess.com/bundles/web/images/sprites/flags-v3.80210ba3.png";);background-position:99.9% 33.3%;">
https://www.chess.com/bundles/web/images/sprites/flags-v3.80210ba3.png";);background-position:99.9% 33.3%;">
This is to both of you:
I used tactic and strategy for short and long term. Does that make sense?
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. >>>
Initiative has to be more than that. It isn't sufficient to force an opponent to respond. You only have the initiative when your opponent struggles to respond soundly.