New criteria for "brilliant" moves?
Sort:
Yep they made any Sacrifices that Are good or best, automatically brilliant
I think they have adjusted them recently so that lower ELO players will get more brilliant moves. It's like yeah you're rated 1000 but only a 1800 should find that move so have a brilliant sticker.
The criteria for brilliant are much too loose.
A true brilliant move satisfies 4 criteria:
1) It is a winning move: a losing or drawing move is not brilliant
2) It is unique: when several moves win, then none is brilliant
3) It involves a sacrifice: that is aethetically pleasing
4) It is a quiet move: no check (+) or capture (x)
Here is an example of a true brilliant move, satisfying all 4 criteria:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031957
I think the recent adjustment was as follows: a move is brilliant if it is a) the best move, or only move, and b) it involves some form of sacrifice.
Jan 20, 2022
0
#6
Previously it used to be the moves that the Engine failed to find within a certain depth. It took them deeper calculations to reach the move. That's what used to be the brilliant move.
In contrast to that, now they changed the algorithm to any reasonable sacrificial move.
> 1) It is a winning move: a losing or drawing move is not brilliant
This is not true, a couple of days a dude showed a game with a "frenzied" rook, like 20-something "brilliant" moves in a row.
> 4) It is a quiet move: no check (+) or capture (x)
And all of them were checks. And I personally had "brilliant" capture moves. Maybe checks too, not sure.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/look-how-many-brilliant-move-black-did#last_comment
here you go
Jan 20, 2022
0
#8
porkqupine wrote:
> 1) It is a winning move: a losing or drawing move is not brilliant
This is not true, a couple of days a dude showed a game with a "frenzied" rook, like 20-something "brilliant" moves in a row.
> 4) It is a quiet move: no check (+) or capture (x)
And all of them were checks. And I personally had "brilliant" capture moves. Maybe checks too, not sure.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/look-how-many-brilliant-move-black-did#last_comment
here you go
he is talking about true brilliant moves, not chess.com "brilliant moves"
Ilampozhil25 написал:
porkqupine wrote:
> 1) It is a winning move: a losing or drawing move is not brilliant
This is not true, a couple of days a dude showed a game with a "frenzied" rook, like 20-something "brilliant" moves in a row.
> 4) It is a quiet move: no check (+) or capture (x)
And all of them were checks. And I personally had "brilliant" capture moves. Maybe checks too, not sure.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/look-how-many-brilliant-move-black-did#last_comment
here you go
he is talking about true brilliant moves, not chess.com "brilliant moves"
And in your opinion it starts to make sense then?
For the last month or so, I have been making "brilliant" moves at least once a week...whereas I made 2 brilliant moves in the past year. Either I am improving very rapidly all of the sudden, or they eased the criteria for brilliancy. Has anybody else had this experience?