The initiative, how to learn!?

First of all, I apologize why this post can be long. Only read who is very interested in the subject, because I would like conscious comments.

"A considerable amount of opening theory can be acquired by diligent study; endgame technique can be learned up to a certain point, and so can the tecnhique necessary for the conduct of various attacks, such as the minority attack, and a number of standard methods against the castled King. Howrever, in the handling of the initiative the natural ability of the player is displayed. It is largely a matter of creating difficulties for the opponent, giving him chances to go wrong.
This explains why it is the phase of the game which typically requires so much time on the clock. As soon as one passes from the initiative to the attack, far less thought is necessary, for the position itself now dictates the direction and manner of the attack, so that quite suddenly the number of possibilities being examined becomes much more restricted."

Dr. M. Euwe & H. Kramer in "The Middlegame - Book Two - Dynamic and Subjective Features"

About 30% of my opponents of similar strength and about 90% of much stronger opponents (200+ points) play in an annoying way. They force their way during the game. Their way of playing sounds somehow disrespectful! Sometimes they seem to be playing the wrong way. It's very similar to the loose-aggressive style in poker (whoever plays poker will understand!).

These players have a natural ability to create threats. They seem undaunted by the complexity of the game and make simple moves that in a few moments become worrying. They are not afraid to play Bc2 and Dd3, Te3-h3 and Dh5, etc. The threats they make can be ignored, but at some point they can no longer be ignored and the game always ends in checkmate or gain of positionals and / or materials.

How can we learn to play this way? How to acquire combinatorial intelligence? These players see a chance to combine the bishop with the rook in a double attack to a pawn, or a threat from knight that removes a piece from a square that then allows them to make a third move that threatens a fourth move and.... We have a very difficult position to defend!

The feeling when playing against these players is: "WOW! This boy is very smart, shrewd, clever, he surpasses me in the most crystalline ability of chess: the ability to combine two or more pieces into one concrete purpose.". Sometimes I can win, but I use my experience, some well-knowln attack idea, or some opening trap, or some strategic way of play, etc..
How to learn to be a smarter guy? This ability seems to be improved, but is already present in the player since his first moves in the game. It's something that strikes our eyes, it's hard to explain in words, it's just there, something that seems to be natural.

Is it possible to develop and / or create this skill? I am not referring to learning a sequence of smart moves, but learning to create a sequence of smart moves. When we study openings, or middle-game, or endgame, we admire the moves. The way black maneuver their pieces in some opening that we are studying often we think a: "Wow! Of course, black is fine now!". But we dont learn create, we just imitate later ... How to learn? What does the literature on the subject say?

PS: chess960 seems the more direct and practical way to learn real chess. But I dont know... Maybe that ability is not learned ,we have it, or we dont have it. Or that ability is of the psychological nature, attached to way we think and not HOW or WHAT we think: The start of our "thinking process", what we, in first place, desire, instead how or what we make. In others words, it's about intention rather than execution. So it's not about moves, but what we want before we make a move.

Just start slinging see what happens. If you lose no big deal. Attack attack attack, and you'll get a better understanding of what works and what doesn't work. The intuition will come. But I'm pretty sure most players get better by studying the game and most of intuition is natural, not that it can't be greatly improved I believe.

Having been (and still being) experienced at this sequence of thoughts, I read your questions with no surprise. Pardon me as the answer is going to be equally long and in order to your points.

1. Let's see what Euwe means. I have been studying Silman and he describes initiative as physical manifestation of mental __ something - wondering/maneuvering/I'm not sure). This means once we reach a key/critical position [which isn't necessarily the position book says is critical, but the one that YOU think that you have to be/can be better at/from this position/point. There can be many such positions in a game.], take everything into account as board has to tell you with your mind logically, and above emotions (like anxiety/fear/(over)confidence). Positive mental edge itself may often suffice to be able to see good ideas/plans, etc.
   He even says to play macho chess/push your agenda, that is to not to address anything (threat) unless/until opponent proves it to be real. Until then, we have to push your agenda and play boldly according to your plan.
   Replying to your opponent's move automatically allows opponent to dictate the further course of the game hence you start losing initiative. See that it is true on board and you start losing the battle mentally as well having surrendered/lost your mind.
   I know initiative is a different stuff, but for now, I have accepted it as it gives me mental edge and that has given me many favorable results (even in hopeless cases).
2. Regarding playing strength and style: We've seen games where Fischer opens with 1. f3 and 2. Kf2 and still wins. Same with players like Carlsen, who make seemingly weird moves (to our eyes) and still wins. The recent WCC has a match where Carlsen-Caruana made 12 moves with knights out of first 20 opening moves. All this seem to be against the basics of Chess, where the truth is we are still learning to play chess from LC0 and Alpha.
   How do I take this? When I see forward, I also see from where and how far I have come. When I see my games from distant past, I can spot tactic/missed win just by throwing a glace.
   We can talk endlessly about this in messages, but I think you're playing more games with higher rated opponents. Higher rated opponent already has mental edge against you, and they are almost pretty sure that they can throw/try anything at you and blow you off. This comes to you as an unusual surprise.
   I usually play slightly lower rated players, which lets you see what they are missing on.
   For higher rated opponents, they need you to experiment some lines/ideas, but I think you should maintain initiative and have guts to (if not beat) make him sit for hours and punish (even to wait to make a mistake and beat him)!
   Chess improvement is gradual. We see better and more as we progress. But 'what else' you need to see, will get more and more complex as you progress and that's why we are not wise enough to criticize engines/elite GMs.

I think it's becoming extensive. Feel free to message me if you want further discussion. Happy Chess Journey!

I find this difficult to answer because (and I don't mean this to sound disrespectful) it seems to me that with a blitz rating > 2000 you would be doing this already. You must be consistently beating ~1600 rated players who are beyond the point of blundering pieces all the time, and how are you doing this if not already taking the initiative and asking them questions which they struggle to answer.

The way I see initiative is that it is partly instinct from experience, but at heart comes down to recognising:

(1) Positions where you are attacking but are positionally/materially worse, and if the other side has free moves then it is clear the attack will have gone away (i.e. typical gambit lines). So then you are obliged to play directly and aggressively.

(2) Positions where in one part of the board you are lost or clearly worse - for example Black on the queenside in the classical Kings Indian. So you know you have to, come what may, create play in the other part of the board and if you need to sacrifice a pawn to do so you go straight ahead and do it.

(3) 'Dead cat' positions (to borrow a political analogy) where your opponent is better and their strategy to improve their position further involves simple and obvious moves. Then mucking up the position - 'throwing a dead cat on the table' - even if via a move that is objectively bad and should lose more quickly with best play, can be the right thing to do as it creates a confusion which gives your opponent the chance to go wrong.

I like how this CM CM piscatorox refer to me as 1600 ( which he is wright sadly, I like how to mentioned the low rated player, like me)

@Fowz: nothing personal, everything is relative. I get totally thumped by 2500 players who in turn get totally thumped by 2800 players. I can say something of the difference between myself at ~2200 and 2400/2500 players but I couldn't describe the difference between that and the next level up.

I used 1600 as (in my opinion on the difference in playing styles between various chess levels) it is a rating level where games are not decided by blunders or basic tactics, but where people tend to play positions too slowly/passively and so generally hand the initiative to their opponent if they are able to take it.

I'm starting making some experiments... for example:

White's 1,2 and 3 moves forced Black to respond to threats. The remaining 25 move, white moves was not in their own intention.

What I have noticed is that due to the flawed nature of the players of my level, to stay with initiative we need to sacrifice! It doesn't just work positionally.

The nature of our mistakes almost always requires a very big disturbance in position, and this kind of decision is not wanted by us, which is still in the Steinitz phase (paraphrasing Kasparov who says that every player goes through the same evolution as chess went through collective context).

It is as if the 1800 ~ 2000 players were still in Steinitz / Tarrash era. It is not so common to see Sicilian Defense, Grunfeld, etc. We still seek, conscious or not, symmetry! 'Ugly' pawn advances or sacrifices all seem to 'break' harmony and we don't like it.

Perhaps a solution would be to change the repertoire and play positions with extreme asymmetry, such as Kalashnikov, eg.

Howrever, I think my example was still in Steinitz era... My idea when I speak 'initiative' is not the same than 'attack'. Attack have well defined targets, how Euwe wrote, initiative is more about smart and little threats with small objectives. Tal attacks work because his opponents dont play cold computer-like defensive moves, they try back to game by castling , etc.. modern players dont try 'back to a normal game', they counter-blow...

Sling that big dick you have in your pocket.

LMAO @haszie is an IGNORAMUS