Brilliant moves: way too easy to get now?

I have learnt, that the more abundant something becomes, the more it's value goes down. Whether it be gold or diamonds. And that is now the case with brilliant moves. Recently, Chess.com has updated the Brilliant move in the analysis, causing it to come much more often, mostly in places where you sacrifice a piece to give a threat to your opponent. But now, many sacrifices, common to players even above 1400, which earlier used to earn them a 'good move' from the analysis, is getting them a Brilliant move. I will give you an example, of a game I was analyzing, Between and IM and a GM.

here the position is equal. It is white to play. There are many moves white can make, to keep the position equal. The IM spots one of them, which is Rxe5 (followed by Rxe5, Nd7 winning back the rook), an easy tactic to spot even for a 1400, and very easy for IM's who are rated 2700-2800 on chess.com. And guess what? the engine called that simple but logical move, a brilliant move. Seriously? I would have just called it the Best move. Or maybe a great find. But a brilliant move? No way. 

I say chess.com has made it way too easy to get brilliant moves. Earlier, I used to go searching in my game archives, to find a brilliant move, and when I found 1-2 in a game or in a few games of mine rarely, I used to jump in joy, and it would also be fascinating to look at those moves, because looking back at them I'd realize that they were really great moves, extremely tough to find. But now when I get a brilliant move, or even 2-3 in a single game at times, I rarely smile, as most of those moves seem perfectly ordinary to me, and I feel anyone rated 200-300 points below me could also find them very easily. I think chess.com needs to get back the original brilliant move finder instead of the new one in the analysis, that one has made it way too easy to get them.

What do you think?

almost any sensible capture of a lower valued piece earns people brilliant moves now......

You are right, at present too many moves are qualified as brilliant.
A true brilliant move satisfies 4 criteria:
1) It is a winning move: drawing or losing moves are not brilliant
2) It is unique: if several moves win, then none is brilliant
3) It involves a sacrifice: this makes it unexpected and estehtically pleasing
4) It is a quiet move: no check (+) or capture (x): checks or captures are too obvious

Here is an example of a true brilliant move: 30 Ba3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031957 

Agree with this, earlier people felt thrilled to get brilliant (atleast me). But, nowadays, its like normal...

Yeah…at one time I was excited to receive a brilliant…now, just another thing…hell, I received a brilliant the other day and it was the only move that made sense! 

absolutely right! and yes, I saw that game, 30. Ba3!! Is indeed a true example of a real brilliant move!

thats just t0 booost ur confidence

half the time chese.com engines are drunk lol

exactly my point! Now brilliant moves are just as good as best moves. Nothing brilliant about them.

As far I can see, in this position  Nxe5 doesn't "keep the position equal", but wins a whole peace. So it changes the game from equal to winning. Sacrifice+gamechanger = brilliant move in my understanding of chess.com's criteria.

But they also promised, to also take in consideration the rating of the player. If this move came from one with a rating of 1000, yes, that might be brilliant for him. But for players with a 2000+ rating?

ad 4) Interesting approach. But maybe there're some exceptions. For example, Morphy's Queen sacrifice 16.Qa8+ in the famous Opera game I would still count as a brilliant move.

ad 1) If you're in a loosing position and find a move to get a draw out of it, that could be regarded as brilliant as well, couldn't it?

I absolutely agree. Chess history is full of brilliant saves, here is a list of a select few:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1001226

Criteria number 4 is very weird too. From the above list, check out Walbrodt - Charousek (1896). The critical position is after white's 86. Qf3?

PS. Funny story, told by Maroczy: "after this move, Charousek offered a draw. When Walbrodt rejected angrily, Charousek played the next move".

#12

Sacrifices with check or capture are brutal. Players check checks and captures first, so they are more obvious.
Here is one more example of a true brilliancy 23...Qg3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1094915 
You cannot draw a lost position. You can only draw a position that already is a draw or a lost position where the opponent just made a mistake.
A true brilliancy wins. Here is another example, where black with 22...Rh8 not only saves, but wins
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1042835 

@tygx We have to agree to disagree. In my humble opinion chess.com's approach in defining brilliancy relative to the player's rating makes more sense for the game review then applying this only to moves on grandmaster level.

#17
With the above 4 criteria a Greek gift sacrifice Bxh7+ does not count as brilliant because it is no quiet move. 'Surprising' and 'counterintuitive' is easy to program according to the above 4 criteria.
#16
We can disagree. In my humble opinion brilliant is absolute i.e. not related to the strength of the players. In the same sense 'beautiful' in art is not related to the renommee of the artist.

idk

Nope

Nope