Best Move or Brilliant?

Which is better in analysis: Best Move or Brilliant? 

Thanks!

Brilliant post. I mean, this is the best post all day. 

Alright thanks!

Not sure it matters . . . perhaps Brilliant is a bit more of a "pat on the back."

Maybe brilliant means its best move but also a move improving your position so significantly that it deserves a mention. Like a game winner or something like that.

I've analyzed about 50 of my games and only once have I been awarded the Brilliant move status.

Seems very rare.      If it was better than best move than the analysis should show it.

It is all relative, someone said. Best is the best move that would be routinely found. Brilliant is NOT the same as best, in this regard, it is far better, and much more rare. Brilliant and genius are synonymous. 

NO CLUE.

NO CLUE.

Best move is found by the computer to be  best. There are all the aspects of the computer combined. Brillant is even better . It is a move of your own talent . But when you made it the computer can see that it was even better than hes own move.

A brilliant move is a move, that is only seen as the best after the engine goes REAALY deep.

I just got one, proud.

Congrats 

Really... I never got..... bravo

mhm

I have always debated: If a move directly leads to your victory, but the computer considers it a mistake, is it still a mistake?

So the computer labels Ng4 and Ba6 as being mistakes, but both moves directly lead to a winning position. And I don't see any corresponding moves where my opponent could have placed me at a disadvantage. 

Yes I’ve had the same situation where the computer labels a move a mistake, even a blunder, and it is mate in 1, or 2. Presumably not forced however. 

If it's not forced, then it's not mate in 2. Just because an idea worked out doesn't mean it was the best move.

Which isn't to say that engines can't sometimes have impractical ideas about a position.  Sometimes an engine will prefer a very tricky line, with lots of room for error, over liquidating to an obviously won endgame.  There, going for the easier win makes a lot of sense.  But in these cases, it's comparing something like a +6 move and a +4 move, and at that point, the level of winning doesn't matter.  Winning is winning.

Engines also sometimes need longer to properly evaluate a position than the end-of-game check allows.  But once you've let it search to a reasonably high depth, if it's still saying you made a mistake (where the evaluation in both cases isn't above, say, +3), then you probably have.  Given adequate time (and perhaps excluding some late endgame positions involving fortress ideas), Stockfish doesn't miss these things.

I see 

Yesterday at the club I made a brilliant sacrifice on the white side of a KID, with 3 minutes left on the clock, which turned a draw into a win and I'm sure it would just be seen as "best move" by the computer. I think I have yet to be diagnosed as having made a brilliant move so it speaks for itself. It's meaningless.

Seriously, you cannot easily program a computer to recognise a brilliant move because that would involve criteria that the computer does not use in its assessments. If you don't understand why, I could explain but it would be long-winded. Briefly, it would involve an entirely different set of algorithms which would needlessly slow down the chess engine. Therefore the assessments of moves as "brilliant" are bogus.