The way I define a brilliant move is like this:
- Make a great move.
- Show it to a person who has the most bare-bones knowledge of chess there is. Someone who only knows how the pieces move and not much else.
- If they immediately say or assume it's bad, it's brilliant.
Brilliant moves are hard to define. According to chess.com: a Brilliant move is when you find a good piece sacrifice. But what is a good piece sacrifice? Looking into our games we can find many that matches this condition. What about those games where you get a brilliant but not with a sacrifice? You can find many examples of this happening: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/brilliant-moves-in-new-game-analysis-report
It is still hard to define brilliant moves as there are so many exception from the definition and so what count as a brilliant move? For me it can only mean a very good move or a best move in a specific position. It can only be one move and chess.com also adds the condition that you cannot get a completely winning position if you did not play it and you should not be in a bad position after the move. People however still argue. You can also post your own ideas in the comment. I still believe that there is a better definition for brilliant move but chess.com's definition is wrong however it is not a good sacrifice, most of the time yes but all of the time? No.
Thank you for spending your time on this!
- @thinhdoduy