This is weird
But d4 is apparently a mistake when I haven't done Nxf7 first and then Nxf7 is best
Brilliant move worse than best move?!?!
Sort:
bald55 wrote:
But d4 is apparently a mistake when I haven't done Nxf7 first and then Nxf7 is best
What?
And now it's a miss and Nxf7 evaluation number is +1.39 even though it was +0.75 before
The thing is that Nxf7 and d4 in that position are both book moves, and both of them are good. They were part of opening theory even 150 years ago. None of them is "brilliant" and none of them is a "miss". Chess.com's super-dumb software ("The Coach") is talking nonsense again. And people pay real money for that. Amazing.
It's weird. It has happened for me that a brilliant move was possible but the best move was different. Either maybe there is a problem, or maybe the brilliant move is not necessarily the best move and you can play them to surprise your opponent.
LikeChess78 wrote:
It's weird. It has happened for me that a brilliant move was possible but the best move was different. Either maybe there is a problem, or maybe the brilliant move is not necessarily the best move and you can play them to surprise your opponent.
On chess.com, "brilliant" means: "a sacrifice that is good". It does not have to be the best move. It does not have to make any sense.
We would obviously need to ask the developers theirself. But for now we can speculate.
A point to be made is that "brilliant" was traditionally used even way before computers to describe an unexpected, suspenseful, game-changing, non-obvious move. We know what those adjectives mean, but how would computers understand them? Chess.com and other engines that implement these annotations simply have their own specific rules, and largely base it on a numerical evaluation after examining some games to a certain depth. (Higher depth = longer time = more accuracy). In short, it is subjective, specific to their coding, and can be inaccurate.
A point to be made is that "brilliant" was traditionally used even way before computers to describe an unexpected, suspenseful, game-changing, non-obvious move. We know what those adjectives mean, but how would computers understand them? Chess.com and other engines that implement these annotations simply have their own specific rules, and largely base it on a numerical evaluation after examining some games to a certain depth. (Higher depth = longer time = more accuracy). In short, it is subjective, specific to their coding, and can be inaccurate.
stefandmarxc wrote:
"A move is brilliant if the engine doesn't think the move is best before the move is played at a certain depth. But after it is played when the engine analyzes the next move at the same depth, it'll figure out in hindsight that the previous move was better." according to Chess.com
Rooky_H8 wrote:
stefandmarxc wrote:
"A move is brilliant if the engine doesn't think the move is best before the move is played at a certain depth. But after it is played when the engine analyzes the next move at the same depth, it'll figure out in hindsight that the previous move was better." according to Chess.com
Source? This isn't even close to the truth.
IMO the !! annotated by the site’s review appears to be a sacrifice that wins back more than a pawn in material. At least that's part of it, I think.
Chess is a game of balance, if both players make the best moves, it results in a drawn game. That means you don't get the chance to make a great move unless the opponent makes a poor move to give you that opportunity. So does anyone know if the system couples a !! to one player with a ?? for the other player?
(edited)
Boom but you are