weird looks like a regular stonewall-esc position
A brilliant move? Why? (answered)
Sort:
ChessPlays2019 a écrit :
I think you should spend more time avoiding 2...Nxe4
2.Nf3 is actually a book move (although I didn't mean to play it)
@ChessPlays2019 This isn't the topic at hand. The question why on earth is e6 a briliancy. I don't usually play Nf3 although it did work out fine this time.
Also may I point out this game was a simul game.
Who described 5...e6 as brilliant. Your cat? Magnus Carlsen? Why did you take that description seriously?
The computer analysis feature.
Well, it's complete nonsense. For a move to be "brilliant" doesn't it have to be A) Clearly the best move. and B) Not obvious. It does appear to be the best move, but hardly by a big margin. And it is probably the first move that 99% of chess players would choose.
Lasker that is why I am asking the reason that the move is described as brilliant. I have analysed multiple games, including some with great move, but this is the first that has been describe as brilliant. I want ot know why the 3000 odd rated engine sees this as a brilliant move. I don't dismiss engine analysis as stupid because it usually has some basis that can be quite easily misseD. If you don't know the answer that's fine, but please don't jump to the conclusion that the engine is stupid, it may be wrong but it's more likely that we are missing something.
9497010838 a écrit :
There were no brilliant moves in that game. At virtually each opportunity both players had to make the correct move, something else was done. If the computer analysis used that terminology, it’s a flaw in the program. But hey, surely the computer knows more than me?
The reason I am giving it particular importance is because the computer hasn't called any other move until now brilliant, so you'd think the move e6 was brilliant.
1400136896 a écrit :
glitch?
Possibly, I am starting to think it might be that the program is made to call brilliancy any move that's best but a bunch of other moves a quite good too. But that feels like a major design flaw and you(d think it's had happened in the other gales I had analysed.
I'm still hoping somebody will have an answer.
I don't use the analysis feature here, but clearly they are using a unique definition of "brilliant" that is used nowhere else in the world. If I sounded like I was attacking you, I didn't mean too, But that evaluation is nonsense
What a pointless rant!
ChessPlays2019 a écrit :
JamesAgadir wrote:
@ChessPlays2019 This isn't the topic at hand. The question why on earth is e6 a briliancy. I don't usually play Nf3 although it did work out fine this time.
Also may I point out this game was a simul game.
I know it was a simul, that is why I posted it. And not only that, it is Bobby Fischer who play against it and lost.
I don't see any games where Carlsen has played this, and if he did it would just be a joke move online probably to have fun with people.
This is not a serious line to use. You are asking about a "brilliancy" based off this start. So, I suggest you ignore the game you played.
Find a stronger opening with a game that has a similar question. Then, it would make sense to look into why certain moves are made. But to see a game where you give up a pawn for nothing, and then ask about another move later on is useless.
Whatever the computers are using to give performance labels is based on sound moves. Why worry about it if it calls it a brilliant move or not?
It is off kilter by virtue of making the stupid Nf3 move. No need to go further in the game.
That's not how a chess engine works, it looks at the position and the move played, no the engine isn't going to be off kilter because of a move played beforehand.
Laskersnephew a écrit :
I don't use the analysis feature here, but clearly they are using a unique definition of "brilliant" that is used nowhere else in the world. If I sounded like I was attacking you, I didn't mean too, But that evaluation is nonsense
Or their is something we aren't seeing, and that's why it's brilliant, because most chess players can't see it. That's why I've made a forum thread, hopefully some high rated player can put the question to bed. Either pointing out the plan that makes the move brilliant, or confirming that it seems to be a glitch.
The topic isn't the move 2. Nf3 it's e6. I was hoping for an serious explanation but it seems the move is either too mysterious or it's a glitch. Well at least I didn't only fall on sarcastic 12 year olds. Thanks to those who have tried to answer the question. If anybody has an answer it would be great ut I'm going to stop commenting on the thread.
Well, Stockfish 10 doesn't see it after an hour, so I think there's nothing there to see. Unless the move fulfills an ancient prophecy made by a dying Merlin the Magician,, it's simply not brilliant.
PS: ChessPlays2019, when you're in a hole, the first rule is: Stop digging!
Spooky that u posted the Gary Thornell win against BF exactly 55 years to the day. And that would make sense....as 5 wuz ahellunlucky # 4him - in more wayz then one.
Laskersnephew a écrit :
Well, Stockfish 10 doesn't see it after an hour, so I think there's nothing there to see. Unless the move fulfills an ancient prophecy made by a dying Merlin the Magician,, it's simply not brilliant.
PS: ChessPlays2019, when you're in a hole, the first rule is: Stop digging!
OK thanks. I guess if stokfish 10 disagrees it's just a glitch.
My oponent played a move described as brilliant. I don't know why it was brilliant. Can anyone explain why? I am white and it's the last move in the diagram that is described as brilliant.
Full game : https://www.chess.com/live/game/3557809325