Answers.Body: <p>Taken literally, this seems a bit absurd. You don't explicitly reject moves that are so awful that no chess player would seriously consider them in the first place. Furthermore, there isn't a simple dichotomy of bad moves and good moves, where all but one move is bad (so that the good one can be arrived at by a process of elimination). There is more typically a continuum between awful moves and excellent moves, with many of the non-excellent moves not being actually bad but just not as good as possible.</p>
  <p>On the other hand (if taken less literally) this way of thinking is related to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophylaxis_(chess)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">prophylaxis</a> in chess, which is a recognized approach to chess planning. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigran_Petrosian" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Petrosian</a> was a virtuoso in prophylaxis. He likely sometimes made moves after determining that any plausible alternative left his position potentially vulnerable to some future threat.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-03-25T13:52:08.097Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-03-25T13:52:08.097Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Body: <p>A long time ago, someone told me about the negative thinking method. There is a saying that in every position there is a move that will not worsen it. The method goes as follows.</p>
  <p>You chose n candidate moves which are possible in the position.
  You try to find out some good moves. If you reject n-1 move because they are worsening the position you can immediately play the n-th candidate move.</p>
  <p>It has its, flaws but it could be useful sometimes. I tried to find out more about this technique, but I did not have luck. Has anyone here heard about that or something similar?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-24T12:45:03.790Z
Comments.Text: I now wonder if negative thinking can be replaced by `reverse thinking`
Comments.UserDisplayName: Sinan Yaman
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-24T13:45:00.343Z
Comments.Text: Isn't this just a cumbersome way to describe how normal chess thinking works? But in the way you describe it, it would require you to know the exact evaluation of the position beforehand, which is not possible unless you already know what the best move is
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-24T14:09:40.297Z
Comments.Text: The method you're referring to seems to be what people normally refer to as the method of elimination. This method is often used by the defending side to find 'only moves' in positions where the opponent has many threats and it's hard to find active counterplay.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Scounged
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-24T15:15:42.390Z
Comments.Text: Normally you would calculate or evaluate every move. This is saying the last one 'must' be good, so you do not need to evaluate it and you can play it straight away.
Comments.UserDisplayName: boucekv
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-24T18:26:33.190Z
Comments.Text: That's like saying something is always in the last place you look, so you can skip all the other places. Yea, but you won't know what the last place is until you've gotten there.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mast
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-24T18:49:04.713Z
Comments.Text: Adding to scounged's comment, elimination is also quite frequent in endgames (where you can calculate more easily). Obviously, if n-1 moves lose forcedly, it's rather probable the nth loses either...
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-24T20:56:48.203Z
Comments.Text: "Think of a couple of moves, then play anything but that" sounds to me like you blunder a lot ;) Overall it's fallacious thinking (if you're finding only bad moves, chances are there's a lot of other bad moves in the position), but it might be useful in time trouble where you've spent enough time thinking, found only bad lines, and it's better to play randomly than keep the clock ticking.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Maciej Stachowski
Tags: <calculation>
Title: What is the negative thinking method in chess?
ThreadText: # What is the negative thinking method in chess?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-03-24)
  
  A long time ago, someone told me about the negative thinking method. There is a saying that in every position there is a move that will not worsen it. The method goes as follows.
  
  You chose n candidate moves which are possible in the position.
  You try to find out some good moves. If you reject n-1 move because they are worsening the position you can immediately play the n-th candidate move.
  
  It has its, flaws but it could be useful sometimes. I tried to find out more about this technique, but I did not have luck. Has anyone here heard about that or something similar?
  
  **Tags:** calculation
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I now wonder if negative thinking can be replaced by `reverse thinking`  
  > **username_2**: Isn't this just a cumbersome way to describe how normal chess thinking works? But in the way you describe it, it would require you to know the exact evaluation of the position beforehand, which is not possible unless you already know what the best move is  
  > **username_3**: The method you're referring to seems to be what people normally refer to as the method of elimination. This method is often used by the defending side to find 'only moves' in positions where the opponent has many threats and it's hard to find active counterplay.  
  > **username_0**: Normally you would calculate or evaluate every move. This is saying the last one 'must' be good, so you do not need to evaluate it and you can play it straight away.  
  > **username_4**: That's like saying something is always in the last place you look, so you can skip all the other places. Yea, but you won't know what the last place is until you've gotten there.  
  > **username_5**: Adding to scounged's comment, elimination is also quite frequent in endgames (where you can calculate more easily). Obviously, if n-1 moves lose forcedly, it's rather probable the nth loses either...  
  > **username_6**: "Think of a couple of moves, then play anything but that" sounds to me like you blunder a lot ;) Overall it's fallacious thinking (if you're finding only bad moves, chances are there's a lot of other bad moves in the position), but it might be useful in time trouble where you've spent enough time thinking, found only bad lines, and it's better to play randomly than keep the clock ticking.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2021-03-25. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  Taken literally, this seems a bit absurd. You don't explicitly reject moves that are so awful that no chess player would seriously consider them in the first place. Furthermore, there isn't a simple dichotomy of bad moves and good moves, where all but one move is bad (so that the good one can be arrived at by a process of elimination). There is more typically a continuum between awful moves and excellent moves, with many of the non-excellent moves not being actually bad but just not as good as possible.
  
  On the other hand (if taken less literally) this way of thinking is related to [prophylaxis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophylaxis_(chess)) in chess, which is a recognized approach to chess planning. [Petrosian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigran_Petrosian) was a virtuoso in prophylaxis. He likely sometimes made moves after determining that any plausible alternative left his position potentially vulnerable to some future threat.
  
  
  ---
  
  