Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: Concept: Initiative aka Sente aka Momentum aka Sure Win
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 2:49 AM
nosovs; "How you can define such positions, and how you can define the plan on continue this position."
This is a great example nosovs, and I agree that white probably has the initiative at this point (and likely a win), even though white will not be able to continue to make all forcing trias from here. The reason is that black also has no threat available, no string of forcing trias to respond with. So, white is still in control with a carefully played building move. I think it is still appropriate to use the term initiative to describe such a position.
When I first looked at this position, without in-depth analysis, my first thought would have been to play something like 10. P9, which is an immediate threat despite not being a tria. Setting up 11. P12 and eventually white to P8 which should solve black's likely counter threat and "retain the initiative", although it is still unclear to me at that point without deeper analysis.
I like your solution of 10. J9 better. Sometimes this late in the game you really need to remind yourself that you do not have to play a forcing move if your opponent has no threats, which happens rarely but we should always be keeping an eye open for such a situation. With 10. J9, first of all, black has no threat (a move such as P9 or Q10 is a false threat due to keystone problems). It causes problems for the opponent in about three different directions. The diagonal with L7 has continuation possibilities. The stones on the 12 line are brought back into play. But the most immediate threat is to H8 and then N11, double keystone capture for the win. So, black likely has to respond with the relatively harmless L11 or something similar, and now white has retained the initiative and should be able to continue for the win.
Very nice example, and another way in which the concept of initiative applies even though it has a different look in games like this.
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 3:45 AM
zoeyk; "if to use initiative alone, and never add a word to it to make a specific new "phrase" to clarify it's meaning in given situations, then Websters does disagree with you. i realize you don't care. and this stubbornness i feel hurts pente terms more than help them."
First of all, Zoey, your pompous attitude really does not help the discussion at all. This seems to be a relatively common complaint about you and while I am not personally offended, you have offended many players with this sort of snobbery. I hope that you'll figure out how to tone it down and stick to the actual discussion. Furthermore, I disagree. Websters does not disagree with me. Words always have context when they are used and Websters will not be able to print every sentence that ever contained the word within its definitions obviously. I didn't think I'd have to spell it out what I meant by slang and phraseology, but I was referring to seeing words used in context. If you read the articles posted by Watsu, they are well written and easy to follow and you know exactly what is meant by initiative wherever it is used because of the context in which it appears.
zoeyk; "really? its context of how its commonly used is vague, generic, flexible to mean what ever someone wants at the time. you your self are questioning a aspect of the term in this thread, sooOOoo... your very fast to say it is not inadequate or incomplete."
I disagree. The concept of initiative in Pente is quite specific and is fundamental to strong play. It definitely does not mean whatever someone wants at the time. You have gone way off on a tangent and are focusing far too much on the word itself without considering its context and its application to the game of Pente.
Your contention that there are many different kinds of initiative tells me that you might not understand the concept in the abstract. You are trying to think about all possible situations that come up within the game and describe how each of those is different, but in fact they all involve a player starting out with initiative in the game and either keeping it all the way to victory or the initiative goes back and forth, which can happen for all manner of reasons, but the underlying concept is the same.
zoeyk; "the worst thing i can do,.. is not let you take a Websters word and alter its meaning and stick it into the urban dictionary? OH MY, initiative is like the Ebonics of pente lol"
This is completely ridiculous.
Zoeyk; "slang, and phraseology has some how trumped Websters,.. ok sorry i didn't get the memo on that dean."
You have totally missed the point.
zoeyk; "then why are you stopping me from making new slang words to clarify that which was vague?"
You don't just invent new slang words. Slang is words or phrases commonly used in context that would appear strange to someone learning the language as a foreign language since the grammer, meanings and combination of words do not necessarily line up with formal constructs of the language. This happens over a relatively long period of time as a whole culture of people uses that slang to convey a meaning which everyone understands.
But you can feel free to invent new terms for Pente all you wish. No one is stopping you, but you should just expect that people will disagree with the need for doing it. This is also something that I've seen you do often, to just list a whole bunch of terms and acronymns with a voice of authority that no one has ever heard before and never uses again. I'm not sure what the point is, but that's fine I guess.
zoeyk; "well, clearly i meant what the literal Websters definition means to the term, and in that respect i think it false to say you missed the leap since clearly you admittedly get it,..."
No, I don't get it. From my point of view you were going off on a tangent and then you were trying to make a connection between things that have nothing in common -- which is a leap in logic. That's how I see it anyway. Maybe others will chime in and disagree with me.
To try to get back to the actual discussion: The only aspect of whether it is accurate to use the term initiative in Pente that I'm personally unclear about is whether we can use it to describe a situation where the player with the initiative cannot win. In both cases, one player is initiating events and controlling the action offensively for a substantial length of the game -- but if this effort is futile, did this player really have initiative or not? The two possible answers would yield a slightly different concept for initiative, but fundamentally similar.
Posts:
2,233
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 5:35 AM
up2ng; First of all, Zoey, your pompous attitude really does not help the discussion at all. This seems to be a relatively common complaint about you and while I am not personally offended, you have offended many players with this sort of snobbery. I hope that you'll figure out how to tone it down and stick to the actual discussion.
Perhaps you should rename the title of the thread, since it seems to welcome vaguely all topics about initiative in general, or do i need to start another "concept;initiative" thread of my own where people can create initiative topics freely? but then with 2 same named threads it might get confusing i guess...
although i don't disagree with my logic at this point, nor my sources, i will go so far as to say that maybe i was too aggressive in my approach, thus maybe i was pompous, and maybe performed some sort of snobbery as you put it. in which case i am sorry. that is not the tone as you put it that a analysis thread should contain ever. and maybe i need to start pasting a bunch of "IMHO" at the end of every sentence, i dunno. and much like you, my feeling are not hurt either...
up2ng; you know exactly what is meant by initiative wherever it is used because of the context in which it appears.
yes i do know, and that's a problem for me, because i disagree with the common "it means every thing and replaces other concept terms normally used in games like chess" usage of the term in pente. you say it doesn't mean every thing, but it has replaced some important concepts and brushed them under the rug, in my view point of how you use it, so i just disagree at this point. just cus somethings common practice at the little pond called pente don't make it right.
up2ng; The concept of initiative in Pente is quite specific and is fundamental to strong play. It definitely does not mean whatever someone wants at the time.
initiative in Pente is quite specific? yet in your opening post you say this;
up2ng; But what exactly does the term initiative mean? When does a player actually have the initiative, There does not seem to be a precise definition anywhere that everyone agrees upon.
zoey; so which is it?
if you read what gaylen posted you'll see that your definition is not identical to chess, nor how Tom B. used it in pente.
up2ng; You have gone way off on a tangent and are focusing far too much on the word itself without considering its context and its application to the game of Pente.
i originally made a post in another thread questioning initiative just like i am now, it inspired you and you wanted to discuss it further, i invited you to make a thread about initiative, and i said i'll show up. my stance now and then has not changed, so you knew where i was at when you took me up on my idea to start this thread. i realize you have your own agenda here, to only ask your one question about can a player with a losing position have the initiative, and or what do you call it.
and after you get your answer then your finished with the topic all together basically.
i on the other hand came into this with my own agenda to question initiative in a more in depth manner. your usage of initiative does not appear to fully match that of the following, Websters (which doesn't matter, you told me), Chess on Wikipedia (which is really basically how initiative got introduced into pente to begin with), and gaylen's recollection of how tom braunlich used it (which was the guy who basically introduced it to pente, or at the very least was one of the founding for fathers of it.) a ccuracy of gaylens sources about tom still need to be verified.
now if tom b. comes in here and tells me im wrong and your right then i'll reconsider my position on that.
what you do have going for you is that the majority of players use it as loosely as you. when i say loose, i mean that in several ways, one of which is how it seems to replace terms that would normally be found in chess.
maybe im wrong on all this, and when i honestly see the light, i will admit it to you.
up2ng; Your contention that there are many different kinds of initiative tells me that you might not understand the concept in the abstract.
sigh.....if this is true than im just really dense maybe.. your telling me a initiative forcing position is a sure win position in perfect play, i was pointing out for example that a position of no structure and no threat can have sure win in perfect play. a position of no structure and no threat that is sure win, compared to a forcing move of sure win only share one thing in common,,..."they both have sure win"
but there is a huge difference in value between these 2 often times IMO, but you seem (and again maybe im wrong) to be ignoring that concept. not to mention things like tempo and other stuff missing from the equation of defining initiative.
now correct me if im wrong here, but, it seems that chess on wiki is telling me "Initiative in a chess position belongs to the player who can make threats that cannot be ignored." no implication of sure win there.
Gaylen says; I like to think of "playing the initiative" as being the first player to play the first threat (tria usually) in a series of threats, or the potential for momentum. (this does not imply sure win) - zk
and
I remember Tom showing various structures to set up for play and the next step would be the strategy for when to play the initiative, or the point where you are the first player forming threats (by filling in the structure) requiring a response of defense by p2. This I took to mean the point at which a player (usually p1) would start playing threats by filling in stones among the structure he had set (usually 3 to 4 stone formations). I don't believe playing the initiative, or momentum was ever meant to imply who will win.
up2ng; From my point of view you were going off on a tangent and then you were trying to make a connection between things that have nothing in common
the only thing less tangent about your topic compared to mine is yours is more simplistic, but i thought because of what had got this thread started gave me the right to voice my topic,... sorry i didn't realize i was steeling your thunder there dean. i thought we could enjoyably talk about my topic as well, i was wrong.
to answer your original question, which you know my answer, and you disagree with is "it is possible for there to be a losing initiative." In My Humble Opinion.
thanks again for the thread, sorry upon you i had tread.
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Posts:
205
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
Moscow,Russia
Age:
56 Home page
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 7:33 AM
Yes P9 instead of J9 also good move in this position. But both moves give away the initiative. The player making such kind of moves say - I want to defend, I want to see attack of another side. For J9 next move may be O7 then O6 and then P6 For P9 next move M11 then may be P13 then M13 Anycase it is near equilibrum, so it is difficult to decide who has initiative, so I'd like to ask zoeyk if position not losing and not winning - you need definition on it too. The question about define which side is better sometimes is very difficult, and both sides can consider that they has initiative .
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 8:49 AM
zoey, no offence but you are committed to particular view and I don't think you can be diverted from it. Up2ng, gaylen, jasonb I am going to leave this one to you...
~ali
P.S. How do you display an emoticon with a frustrated sigh?
Posts:
2,233
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 6:50 PM
its funny alison, becuase the way i read it gaylen and nosovs are on my side..
that even tho you have sure win, it doesnt mean you have the initiative, so i think your partially incorrect to only point out that its only my view point.
and, tom braunlich, and chess definitions never imply that initiative means sure win for the holder of the initiative. Only in pente on a word of mouth by rumor and bad habit forming small pond scale has the word been used so loosely.
and if its true then it only more validates that a person with a losing position can have initiative as well.
this, all of this i have been saying, is all to answer up2ng's primary question of;
"can a person with a losing position have initiative?"
my answer is yes, and all ive been trying to do is build a case to show such.
so if i don't have the answer that you and up2ng were expecting then the conversation cant continue? then the conversation was rigged from the beginning if that's the case.
i think you too are still stuck to a particular view point, but that doesn't mean i am just goina cut the conversation short out of frustration. im still willing to hear your guys/girls sides with a open mind that you may bring forth new supporting proof to show that your more right than my side. and if it happens then im more than happy to say you are more right.
but at the moment my proof in my mind out weighs yours by sheer volume.
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 7:09 PM
zoey, I did not say you were wrong or right, its just that I don't think you can or will be pursuaded one way or the other. Which means that offering a countering view to yours feels a little futile. I commend your efforts and those of the others in the discussion. I have said what I have to say and am content to leave it to others to slug it out.
Posts:
2,233
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 7:34 PM
to nosovs; after reviewing the position for an hour clicking threw hundreds of moves, it is my strong feeling with J9 that white has sure win.
as to your question about how do you call it when both sides seem to have the initiative, i think the problem is to use the term for both. i think we need to introduce terms such as "tempo" for example.
but, in that situation of appearing equal, it is not. one side is ahead of the other no matter how small the margin is.
thus perhaps these definitions can work for "one side" in these positions;
1- a "dominant" and "dormant" position of no immediate potential or threat that has sure win in perfect play.
2- a "dominant" position of no immediate threat, but does have a potential looming to use, that has sure win in perfect play.
4- temporary Threats, whether in a single string of threats, or in a multiple series of strings of threats of 2 or more strings that in perfect play are sure loss.
5- temporary Threats, whether in a single string of threats, or in a multiple series of strings of threats of 2 or more strings that in perfect play inevitably lead to the obtainment of a Victory by continuous threats.
but, yes the thing about what you are saying of when both have initiative, very interesting. one side's is more dominant. and im not sure if you mean which of the following situations; both sides have no build-able structure, winning side has build-able structure only, losing side has build-able structure only, both sides have build-able structure, winning side has a forcing move, losing side has a forcing move, both sides have a forcing move that both defuse and counter each other in that moment, both sides have many forcing moves and capture traps, that neither can directly act on in that moment until the position further develops.
maybe you mean one of these.
in this case, i guess ide say one side has the ability to continue on with "subtle momentum" or "stronger tempo" of stabilizing the future winning attack available as a result of an earlier "stronger initiative" possibly, that initiated in a "good enough way", while the other player just has "weaker tempo" forcing or not, or "weaker initiative", yet a tempo still strong enough to have a decent balance of time and space, that dramatically slows down the opposition to a crawl of perhaps only one inch ahead in the race for the finish.
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 8:03 PM
zoeyk; "Perhaps you should rename the title of the thread, since it seems to welcome vaguely all topics about initiative in general,..."
I think you're confusing disagreements with not welcoming different viewpoints to be discussed. If I'm coming accross as not wanting any views about the topic of initiative to be discussed, well that was not my intention. I'm sure you can understand that it's hard to be critical and welcoming at the same time, but I will be more mindful of this.
zoeyk; "yes i do know, and that's a problem for me, because i disagree with the common "it means every thing and replaces other concept terms normally used in games like chess" usage of the term in pente. you say it doesn't mean every thing, but it has replaced some important concepts and brushed them under the rug, in my view point of how you use it, so i just disagree at this point."
Again, when you see the term initiative used in context, such as within the articles used in this thread, I don't see how it means "everything" and replaces other concepts. Conceptually, I believe that it is quite specific in Pente -- the possible differences in usage that I'm asking about here are very subtle. The concept is fundamentally the same in each case. I felt that you were the one bringing in unrelated concepts into the discussion and I was just trying to reign that in and steer us back to the topic at hand. Now you are claiming that the term is too broad and applies to too many concepts. That's all I've been trying to point out to you. I do not believe that it does for most people -- you were making it more complicated than it has to be, and in doing so we were getting away from the original topic.
................................. up2ng; The concept of initiative in Pente is quite specific and is fundamental to strong play. It definitely does not mean whatever someone wants at the time.
initiative in Pente is quite specific? yet in your opening post you say this;
up2ng; But what exactly does the term initiative mean? When does a player actually have the initiative, There does not seem to be a precise definition anywhere that everyone agrees upon.
zoey; so which is it? ................................
I guess I just answered what I meant above. There is a concept of initiative that we all basically agree upon, a fundamental and important concept in Pente. Trying to flush out exactly how the term has been used historically and how it is being used today -- how broad or specific a situation does the concept cover -- is less clear, and was the main question posed in my original post.
zoeyk; "i on the other hand came into this with my own agenda to question initiative in a more in depth manner." ... "the only thing less tangent about your topic compared to mine is yours is more simplistic"
You really do need to get off your high horse. There is nothing more simplistic about my understanding of the concept than yours, and there is a difference between studying a topic in depth with some sort of organization and focus and the approach I've seen from you on a few occasions of going off on tangents, discussing unrelated topics and a generally chaotic mishmash of ideas that are supposed to somehow relate to the topic. Perhaps I'm being too harsh on that sort of criticism and that I'm picking on writing styles and general attitudes more than anything else, which maybe is not so relavent. If that's the case then I should probably just hold my tongue instead, but I couldn't think of how else to steer this discussion back on course.
zoeyk; "your telling me a initiative forcing position is a sure win position in perfect play"
Well, this was one of my thoughts, but since I asked the question, I wasn't clear on whether this was the case or not. If I gave the impression that this is my firm stance, then I change my mind. Right now my mind is open with regard to that question. Mainly, I knew that some documents and books had been published in the past and I was curious how the term has been used by previous experts, as well as getting first hand opinions from experts of today such as yourself.
zoeyk; "I remember Tom showing various structures to set up for play and the next step would be the strategy for when to play the initiative, or the point where you are the first player forming threats (by filling in the structure) requiring a response of defense by p2. This I took to mean the point at which a player (usually p1) would start playing threats by filling in stones among the structure he had set (usually 3 to 4 stone formations). I don't believe playing the initiative, or momentum was ever meant to imply who will win."
I'll come back to this one.
zoeyk; "sorry i didn't realize i was steeling your thunder there dean. " ... "thanks again for the thread, sorry upon you i had tread. "
This kind of stuff is just ridiculous.
---------------------
Ok, anyways, I think we are back on the right track here. I think we can agree that initiative in Pente is generally when one player is playing offensively, creating threats that must be responded to by the opponent. This player seemingly has control of the game, "initiating events", and dictating play. This might be immediate threats such as trias or one ended tesseras or threats to win by capture. It could also be a state where one player's position has a greater threat potential than the opponent, who must respond defensively -- the ultimate example being 1. K10.
Within this concept there a few slightly different usages that convey a more narrow or more broad scope of this concept.
1. The player with the initiative is in a winning position with perfect play. However, the position may be early and/or complex enough so that neither player (or modern day computers) can see a "sure win" from the current position. Even upon extensive analysis after the fact, it may be difficult to determine for sure what the perfect moves are in order to insure this victory. This can include situations where moves are played with no immediate threat but maintain a positional advantage so that any counter threats attempted by the opponent will be squelched. But usually this involves a long series of successive threats until a win condition is discovered.
2. A sequence of threatening or forcing moves can be played which dictate the direction of the game for a significant length of time. However, this may turn out to be a losing position no matter how these threats are strung together.
3. A single forcing move, such as a one-sided tessera, which must be immediately responded to by the opponent.
When you think about it, usage #1 is actually the most specific, NOT the most broad. It describes a sequence of offensive moves only when they can lead to victory. Otherwise, they weren't really offensive moves, but more of a delay tactic, hoping for an error.
I should probably stay away from chess examples since I'm not a chess expert. But, this reminds me of situations in chess where one player is at a serious material disadvantage, but finds a way to put the opponent in check many times in a row. However, that opponent eventually finds a way to maneuver his King into safety and after this his victory is pretty much guaranteed. So, the player initiating check for all those moves was playing moves that appear offensive, and if the opponent makes a mistake there is a real threat of checkmate. But really this is more of a tactic of delaying the inevitable and hoping for a mistake.
Usage #2 is broader and #3 covers the most situations.
I was probably leaning towards usage #1 myself, but after seeing some of the arguments and the documentation provided in this thread, I'm now open to viewing usage #2 as being the most correct.
Now, if we decide that usage #2 is the best description for the concept of initiative, at what point can we differentiate between usage #2 and usage #3? (which I will never agree has anything to do with the concept of initiative in Pente) Two moves? Three moves? How many consecutive threats does it take to constitute a proper initiative? Does it have to do with whether the players can plainly see that such threats will not lead to victory? Levels of complexity? How about situations in the midgame where both players are going back and forth making finesse moves that are not immediate threats, fighting for positional advantage? Who has the initiative, if anyone? Taking usage #2 as correct actually leads to more questions than answers regarding when a player actually has the initiative or not. It might be one of those, "well you'd just have to see it" kind of things and we would all agree on whether or not initiative exists within a position just by feel and experience. Which means that some of these questions may actually be rhetorical in nature and have no clear answer that applies to all situations.
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Mar 31, 2010, 9:29 PM
[quote from nosovs] "For J9 next move may be O7 then O6 and then P6"
Honestly I did not look at this line at all. It does offer some hope for black although I'm not sure there is enough momentum to create a sure win from there. I haven't looked at it very closely. It sounds like zoey has analyzed this possibility and determined that white would still win, but your point is well taken that now black appears to be on the attack, and in that sense perhaps black has taken the initiative.
[quote from nosovs] "For P9 next move M11 then may be P13 then M13"
I had looked at this one a little more closely since I was making the suggestion of P9 and I don't really understand this variation.
Oops! Ok, I see what you are doing here with black to M13 which threatens a double keystone capture for the win. At first I was looking at white's next move at P12 XXX_X which does not provide enough continuation and eventually white would have to defend black's M13 threat. However, white's other option at P10 X_XXX leads to a clear victory by forcing moves for white. Interesting variation.
But I was actually seeing it more like this: (P12 instead of P13):
I could not see farther than this in my head with a quick glance and was unclear if black has continuation from this position.
----------
[quote from nosovs] "But both moves give away the initiative. The player making such kind of moves say - I want to defend, I want to see attack of another side."
It is interesting to see how nosovs is using the term initiative here. Not based on who is winning or has the advantage to win but more about who is currently dictating play with forcing moves. For example, maybe this player already sees what sort of attack may come from the other side and knows that it cannot be sustained. Yet, he describes this situation as giving away the initiative to the other player (temporarily?). Since he likely understands the game better than any of us, this opinion has great merit.
I guess I'm coming around on the idea that initiative does not necessarily mean victory and has more to do with initiating a series of forcing moves (or moves with a higher degree of threat than the opponent) regardless of whether or not this overall threat can lead to victory.
Posts:
112
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
cottage grove, oregon Home page
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Apr 1, 2010, 12:36 AM
Hey, don't be talkin trash about my game dang it!
I would actually like to see a way to win this game as p1 at this point of the game (Riii ver me)or anywhere before within p1s prior 6 moves. SHOW ME THE FLAW IN MY THINKING
Interesting that Alex pointed out this game as it stands out in my mind...last round(?) at Brainking with Alex Nosovsky, Richardiii, Jayhawk, and me (somehow). Richard initiated this opening defense for the only game I figured I had ever mastered as p1. I opted to play a completely new offense rather then to play what I knew. After around move 5 or 6 I had realized that I had no way to win if Richard were to play 'optimally'...and I was sure he would. I asked him if I could 'undo' at that point, but he just smiled and kept on moving. So, after maybe 30 or 40 hours of me trying to figure out a line of play for a developement taking me to a win I pretty much gave up and gave it my best effort. I wouldn't say that Richard had the initiative though, except at times when he was on the offense. I wonder if in this scenario though that if we both saw that far ahead, and probably did, could we say that Richard had the momentum??? --coming to a blog near you soon
I gave up the initiative in this game on my 4th move which became obvious to me after mayber 30 or 40 hours of looking for a win. I seperated myself from my first grouping and couldn't see a way to reconnect with that formation if richard were to play optimally(and I was sure he would).
Posts:
112
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
cottage grove, oregon Home page
Re: Concept: Initiative
Posted:
Apr 1, 2010, 1:20 AM
I thought I should sum up my thoughts from my last post on yesterday especially after more research on the "chess definition" of the term "initiative". Since I believe that that "initiative" was a term transferred over from chess to pente then this term of how it is defined in chess would be the best place to start.
Many pente players were former chess players, myself included. Initiative was a fitting chess term to transfer to pente because the basic meaning is equally applicable to pente.
Tom's (watsu) post Mar 27 5:28
"Am I winning now?" Tesh asks after his move 6. "At the time I thought I was. But Peter now sacrifices two more captures to secure a promising initiative"
Seems clear to me that Rollie was implicating that Peter was playing the initiative (by virtue of playing first and continuing offense play perhaps using a strategy that might be termed jockying for position which includes a couple of sacrifices). And then after Peter forms a structure to play out and force responses by p2, he is now definitly on the initiative [secures a promising initiative]. The fact that he gave the initiative away on move 19 when he could have retained it and won by playing L10 is of no matter. Besides, he probably won anyway. The term 'initiative' has never been used to imply that the person using initiative has to win the game.
Basically "the initiative" at its' most simplistic meaning is having the oportunity to play offense and playing it. Taking control. Player one has initiative from move one, obviously.
I think coming to an agreement on this term would be good to be used as a tool in analysis of games. Plays could be color coded, maybe next to p1 and p2, for who is on offense/ initiative and maybe a color coding for strategy used by player on offense such as "blue" for 'sacrificing for position' etc.
I don't know if this would help much or not, but I remember when I was having a hard time learning how to program in basica that I had the idea of color coding the code so I could read and sort it out faster. It worked great for that anyway.
The term 'initiative' has never been used to imply that the person using initiative has to win the game.