What criteria(s)  could be used to determine  who has the initiative?

Your contributions are highly valued. Please feel free to explain yourself clearly.  Thanks for inputs. 

Off the top of my head, something like being able to make threats while pursuing your natural play.

So for example lets say the opponent has a weak king and you maneuver to attack it.

Sometimes those maneuvers will create threats along the way. If so, then I'd call that initiative.

But other times, your building-up moves can be ignored, and the opponent e.g. spends his time preparing for counter play. In this case you wouldn't have an initiative.

---

I guess another way to say it is when you can force your opponent to respond to your moves for a protracted period of time. However in my mind "initiative" is more than that, because if you're playing poor moves just to force a response then it's sort of a fake initiative. That's why I include the criteria that it must also be pursuing some logical play. Attacking the king is one, but it could just as easily be attacking a pawn structure, or a sector of the board e.g. trying to infiltrate on the queenside.

 stiggling

But other times, your building-up moves can be ignored, and the opponent e.g. spends his time preparing for counter play. In this case you wouldn't have an initiative.    

So terms that summarize part of your argument would be: "forced move(s)" and "threatful move(s)"?

Are there other criteria(s) that could be specified? Can we isolate them in a specific term or expression?

Sorry  stiggling I could not copy

all your entry.

Also "not blundering " comes to mind. 

I don't know. Usually when other people comment they have good ideas too. Someone else will probably have something useful to add or their own take on it etc.

So far three terms come from your comments: forced move,  threatful move and non-blunder move. Let's see if there are inputs. Thank you so far for your share. 

That must be : "more input".

Maybe post it in the general forums?
Posting it in the analysis forum was fine, but maybe you'd get more replies in the general forum.

I thought this is the general forum?

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.  

If you have, or can create threats that cannot be ignored?  You have the initiative.

Is that the only condition,  or there are other criteria that might have not come up yet in this discussion, as well?

If you blunder do you lose the initiative? Or,  if you force a move on your opponent you get to hold the initiative?

Is that the only condition,  or there are other criteria that might have not come up yet in this discussion, as well?

If you blunder do you lose the initiative? Or,  if you force a move on your opponent you get to hold the initiative?

What more do you want?

If you have, or can create something in the position, that forces your opponent to react to it, you have the initiative.

The initiative is the capacity to make threats.

-- Capablanca in Chess Fundamentals, Chapter 4.

How do you fight for the initiative and, most importantly, when?

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.

Well put! Thank you. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chess.com/amp/article/initiative-1

Thank you for granted comment too. 

In this thread I have been trying to specify the elements,  for the lack of better term,  to break it down to criteria. So far, it seems to come down to "forced move" or "threatful move". 

This terming clarifies the meaning in my opinion.  That is what I was after. 

To further clarify the meaning one could say: Initiative is having a threatful, non-blundering move against the opponent. 

Correction: granted must be grammar.  Sorry.