Updated Brilliant Moves

So chess.com just announced that they are updating what brilliant moves are to reflect how people think of brilliant moves, not just base it on how hard it is to find.

Now a brilliant move requires some kind of sacrifice that leads to a significant advantage, and added "great moves" that are probably just hard to find best moves as before.

I don't think historically all brilliant moves have been sacrifices, but it's certainly better than the old system that nobody understood.

Is this good?

The "brilliant" move idea is a steaming pile pf poo.  It does nothing to improve your game, and fixates people on things they shouldnt be wasting time on.  Its an ego feed.  Someone posted a game with a "brilliant" move.  IT was a mate in 1 and they played the only move that prevented mate.  But...apparently it was a brilliant move to get mated in 2 moves instead of 1 move.

Tal-like standard? 

So now bad sacrifices that can be refuted will be rewarded?

Obviously positive reinforcement can be helpful.  But when all someone is looking for is being told what a good boy they are?  All that does is create weak people that think life owes them. 

I love Christmas.  Not sure what that had to do with my post.

I guess we'll wait and see how well it works. The old system was certainly confusing. I keep a library of games where I've played a supposed "brilliant" move, but in most cases it was nothing special. It did however seem to be a reliable indicator that I was going to lose the game :-)

Is sacrifice required for a move to be brilliant? That is my only negative about this change, everything else is great.

Im sure you have seen the posts where someone will post a game they won (obviously) that is littered with mistakes, blunders, and missed tactics.  BUT!  It has that one "brilliant" move that they want to gloat over.  Its like missing 99 out on 100 on a test and bragging about the 1 you got correct, and completely ignoring what you did wrong.  That is not how you improve.

It's an odd thing to base it on, but I don't have a better suggestion. A great move that is hard to find is how I think of a "brilliant !!" move, but it isn't easy for today's computers to determine what is hard to find for a human. What is hard to find for a computer is irrelevant, but that's all software can determine.

Gamifying chess is what chess.com does. All the awards, badges etc. make it fun for a lot of people. It's what game players expect. Nothing says you have to participate in any of that if it doesn't push your buttons. Skip the analysis, or use "self analysis" if you prefer (I often do).

For some people, the gamification is what helps them learn and what makes it fun. Otherwise they'd probably quit, or go to another chess website that does more to keep their attention.

I don’t like the sacrifice-only definition either, but they DID add “great” moves, so there’s that.

But if you think about it, most of the brilliant moves that come to mind easily, like Andersen’s Queen sacrifice on d7 or Morphy’s on b8, were sacrifices. I mean it’s not perfect, but the old system was just impossible to parse and probably wouldn't even have called these brilliant, because to a computer they are obvious.

I get that the site has moved to the "tee-ball" mentality of rewarding everyone for everything possible.  No one is a loser anymore.  As for me?  I quit taking chess seriously a couple years ago. 

You even had people posting how "sad" they were getting over some engine verbiage like: "You let the win slip away."  That tells you all you need to know.  Some cant even handle criticism.

The way I understand it, is that they have changed accuracy scores in order to make it a bit higher on low end and a bit lower on high end.

I do not mind fine tuning if games with 97 accuracy will stop happening, where there were a few really bad moves and the accuracy seems pretty off, but I hope that they haven't exaggerated accuracy on the low end just to make someone feel better. In the same way, I don't think that rating should determine which move is brilliant and which one isn't.

Apart from that, the changes seems interesting.

Then after a crushing defeat, they should add a soothing motherly voice which says: "Good job sweetie" or something like that.

Yea...God forbid people should try and work past that and improve.

Obviously people here care about brilliant moves like their chess life depended on them.

The sad part is that they dont even understand the move or why its "brilliant". 

It would also be impossible because there would a lot of different interpretations on what a brilliant move is, and sometimes those interpretations may even conflict. Just coming to a consensus on other move classifications isn't straight forward and has differences of opinion.