Strange...I did the analysis and there was no brilliant move.
LOL maybe it's just lying to me then! This is what I see:
I think the diamond analysis is a little deeper. It still really likes the move, but...
betacssjs.chesscomfiles.com/bundles/web/images/icons/classifications/critical.png, https:////betacssjs.chesscomfiles.com/bundles/web/images/icons/classifications/critical@2x.png 2x" alt="critical.png">
Oh interesting. Thanks for clarifying. It looks like an obvious move to me. Like why would you not take the bishop with the pawn...
There is at least one thread devoted to "brilliant" moves where most of the folks posting are confused about why their moves were deemed brilliant, so I guess it's a bug of some sort.
There is at least one thread devoted to "brilliant" moves where most of the folks posting are confused about why their moves were deemed brilliant, so I guess it's a bug of some sort.
Not a bug but some brilliant moves are just "the best move"
Maybe, the engine is just being sarcastic, lol.
all the games I win it tells me I made several mistakes. So, that proves the computer is full of you know what.
9. Qf4? ∓ {MISTAKE
(-1.78)} ({(+1.63)
9... g5 {Critical move. a pawn forking queen/bishop} 10. Bxg5 fxg5!
{Critical move. a piece for a pawn exchange giving you the bishop pair with an IQP} 11. Nxg5 Bb4?? ± {BLUNDER (+3.91)} ({(-1.77)
Did you see the pin (11...Bh6)? or that Qd7 or Qe7 protects the LSB on e6 and allow castling queenside?
If not, it wasn't brilliant, it was only critical that you see it's the only way to keep an advantage.
But this was a blitz/bullet game, wasn't it?
Whether a move is "brilliant" or not is just based on some piece of computer code. It is meaningless. Moves are either good or they're not. I would advise people to ignore "brilliant" moves, and to ignore "inaccuracies" as well. If you're not a master, your games will be won or lost by mistakes and blunders--particularly blunders! Study and understand your mistakes and blunders and you will become a much stronger player
If not, it wasn't brilliant, it was only critical that you see it's the only way to keep an advantage.
But this was a blitz/bullet game, wasn't it?
I am in no way claiming to be a brilliant chess player. Any best moves or brilliant moves are usually dumb luck on my part. This is clearly evidenced by how I completely staggered around the rest of the game.
Whether a move is "brilliant" or not is just based on some piece of computer code. It is meaningless. Moves are either good or they're not. I would advise people to ignore "brilliant" moves, and to ignore "inaccuracies" as well. If you're not a master, your games will be won or lost by mistakes and blunders--particularly blunders! Study and understand your mistakes and blunders and you will become a much stronger player
I'd disagree with you to a point. There are good moves and bad moves but in my opinion, a brilliant move is one that is not obvious but is devastating in the sequence it forcefully unlocks.
"a brilliant move is one that is not obvious but is devastating in the sequence it forcefully unlocks."
I agree with you--in real life! But on Chess.com, a "brilliant" move is determined by some crude piece of computer code. Whatever criterion it uses has nothing to do with brilliancy as you and I understand the word
It is not really a brilliant move--it is a very obvious move. A obvious move cannot be a brilliant move.
The chess engine simply does not know what is a brilliant move. It was programmed wrong.
Hmm...
I remember a position/game from a book.
I wonder if the site auto depth analysis would see it as brilliant, a mistake, critical mistake, or something else if it were presented in a game?
hope the game came out right
Position is after 28.Rc1
But move in question is 28...Re1+
If someone can run a game report for it (not sure if you need premium membership or not).
Edit: I'll need to fix the game...
Ok, there (headers gave issues)
What I get when running a report is
28...Re2 is best
It is not, but couldn't go back to it (gotta pay for that ridiculousness).
So, if someone were to actually play 28...Re1+ in a game
What would it say when running a report? This is what I should've done, I guess.
I think that brilliant moves are based on one of two things:
1. the engine hasn't fully analyzed the move
2. the engine finds all other moves to lose/draw the game.
