"Brilliant" moves are entirely a computer artifice. They mean absolutely nothing. Moves are either strong or weak, good or bad. And the sad truth in that if you are under 2000, almost all your games will be decided by bluders, not "brilliant" moves
Have brilliant moves become easier to get?
Sort:
Nov 17, 2021
0
#3
I believe they have become easier.
There is a line in the Smith Morra Gambit where the computer gives a brilliant move. Awarding brilliant for theory - what's the point in that?
And I got 2 "brilliants" in three moves in this game: https://www.chess.com/nl/analysis/game/live/30905958653
(Black's move 24 and 26 got !!)
I believe it's an algorithm thing: people love it if they see a !! in their analysis, so we'll give them more.
Nov 17, 2021
0
#4
rterhart wrote:
I believe they have become easier.
There is a line in the Smith Morra Gambit where the computer gives a brilliant move. Awarding brilliant for theory - what's the point in that?
And I got 2 "brilliants" in three moves in this game: https://www.chess.com/nl/analysis/game/live/30905958653
(Black's move 24 and 26 got !!)
I believe it's an algorithm thing: people love it if they see a !! in their analysis, so we'll give them more.
The brilliants described in post 2 are different than what you are seeing. The new Game Review, which isn't yet available to basic members, defines brilliant moves as sacrifices that are good or best.
The Game Report brilliant classifications are different and the change in Review was partially in response to brilliant moves not always making sense in that version.
Nov 24, 2021
0
#5
Laskersnephew wrote:
"Brilliant" moves are entirely a computer artifice. They mean absolutely nothing. Moves are either strong or weak, good or bad. And the sad truth in that if you are under 2000, almost all your games will be decided by bluders, not "brilliant" moves
Okay but have they gotten easier to get.
Nov 24, 2021
0
#6
CharlieS1103 wrote:
Laskersnephew wrote:
"Brilliant" moves are entirely a computer artifice. They mean absolutely nothing. Moves are either strong or weak, good or bad. And the sad truth in that if you are under 2000, almost all your games will be decided by bluders, not "brilliant" moves
Okay but have they gotten easier to get.
Some people say yes, some no. But the rules to how they are classified is more consistent than they used to be.
Jan 11, 2022
0
#7
https://www.chess.com/news/view/chesscom-releases-new-game-review#brilliant
Chess.com adopts too broad criteria for a brilliant move.
A true brilliant move satisfies 4 criteria:
1) It is winning: neither losing nor drawing moves are brilliant.
2) It is unique: if several moves win, then none is brilliant.
3) It involves a sacrifice: that is aesthetically pleasant.
4) It is a quiet move: neither check nor capture, as those are too obvious.
Jan 11, 2022
0
#9
tygxc wrote:
Chess.com adopts too broad criteria for a brilliant move.
A true brilliant move satisfies 4 criteria:
1) It is winning: neither losing nor drawing moves are brilliant.
2) It is unique: if several moves win, then none is brilliant.
3) It involves a sacrifice: that is aesthetically pleasant.
4) It is a quiet move: neither check nor capture, as those are too obvious.
Rather strange criteria you made up there. Why can't a drawing move not be brilliant? Why does it have to be a sacrifice? Why does it have to be quiet? According to Merriam-Webster the word means "distinguished by unusual mental keenness or alertness". None of your points have anything to do with the meaning of "brilliant".
Jun 27, 2023
0
#10
IMO, a brilliant move has to be a sacrifice, otherwise it is just the best move, otherwise it just has to be hard to see
Two of my most recent games contain brilliant moves, are they easier to get or just an odd coincidence?
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/30815370285?tab=review
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/30814232035?tab=review