" Chess.com's "brilliancies" are not a big achievement. "
You could have stopped right here.
Brilliant moves are finally obsolete.
Sort:
Jul 1, 2021
0
#4
Yes, I think they recently changed what constitutes a brilliant move. I had this one which seemed contradictory, they said it was a "critical move" (aka you found the ONLY good move) but also a brilliant move. If it's the only good move how brilliant can it really be?
Brilliancy refers to esthetical pleasure.
A true brilliant move should satisfy 4 conditions:
1) It is a move that wins. A move that draws or loses is not brilliant.
2) It is unique, the only move that wins. If several moves win, then none is brilliant.
3) It involves a sacrifice. Sacrifices are generally seen as esthetically pleasing.
4) It is a quiet move: neither check, nor capture. Checks and captures are brutal and obvious.
Jul 1, 2021
0
#6
tygxc wrote:
Brilliancy refers to esthetical pleasure.
A true brilliant move should satisfy 4 conditions:
1) It is a move that wins. A move that draws or loses is not brilliant.
2) It is unique, the only move that wins. If several moves win, then none is brilliant.
3) It involves a sacrifice. Sacrifices are generally seen as esthetically pleasing.
4) It is a quiet move: neither check, nor capture. Checks and captures are brutal and obvious.
that's wrong, there are many instances where a "brilliant" sacrifice comes with check, something like the greek gift
Jul 1, 2021
0
#7
aMazeMove wrote:
tygxc wrote:
Brilliancy refers to esthetical pleasure.
A true brilliant move should satisfy 4 conditions:
1) It is a move that wins. A move that draws or loses is not brilliant.
2) It is unique, the only move that wins. If several moves win, then none is brilliant.
3) It involves a sacrifice. Sacrifices are generally seen as esthetically pleasing.
4) It is a quiet move: neither check, nor capture. Checks and captures are brutal and obvious.
that's wrong, there are many instances where a "brilliant" sacrifice comes with check, something like the greek gift
In general he's right though. There are brilliant moves that are checks or captures (like Kasparov's Rxd4) but in such cases they really have to be spectacular to make up for it.
Jul 1, 2021
0
#8
llama47 wrote:
aMazeMove wrote:
tygxc wrote:
Brilliancy refers to esthetical pleasure.
A true brilliant move should satisfy 4 conditions:
1) It is a move that wins. A move that draws or loses is not brilliant.
2) It is unique, the only move that wins. If several moves win, then none is brilliant.
3) It involves a sacrifice. Sacrifices are generally seen as esthetically pleasing.
4) It is a quiet move: neither check, nor capture. Checks and captures are brutal and obvious.
that's wrong, there are many instances where a "brilliant" sacrifice comes with check, something like the greek gift
In general he's right though. There are brilliant moves that are checks or captures (like Kasparov's Rxd4) but in such cases they really have to be spectacular to make up for it.
all brilliant moves are spectacular
Makes sense.
Most of the brilliant move just vanishes if analysed at higher depth, most often endgames includes only winning moves or only draw move so probablity of brilliant is more in endgame that's why he had 5 brilliancies. Don't know why the king and queen moves are brilliant though sometimes they happen and then vanishes after sometime or a glitch.
I think they are still big achievements if not given brilliant to simple captures. I think brilliancies should also include impossible looking move, I once played impossible looking move gave my knight for free, but the move was second best so not brilliant.
Some moves are also considered brilliant if engine didn't saw it until you play it.
After a little research and viewing (thanks SO much to @FiddlerCrabSeason), I have made something seem real and make sense to me. Chess.com's "brilliancies" are not a big achievement. FiddlerCrabSeason got 5 in one game and most of them were obvious game-retaining moves. And as well in one of my games, this happened.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/18747652959 No way king takes is brilliant
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/18818424457 5 brilliancies? A bit generous
And the biggest example, the not well known move 5 brilliant move.
There is no way this can be brilliant. Other examples have been, like this:
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/13590068147?tab=analysis
If the move that goes the other way also saves the game, how can this be brilliant and the equivalent of taking the king to the right not? (this is what I mean) try moving the rook right and right over again and see what it does. Still 0.00 but still no brilliant? Hmm.
Tell me if this is overreacting but after a brilliant move was taken away from me I started to study this. Tell me your thoughts.