"Brilliant" Evaluation

I know this has been asked before but I haven't found a concrete answer so here it is:

What has to be done for a move to be declared as "Brilliant" by the analysis feature from Chess.com? What I would like to see is some kind of checklist provided by someone who actually knows.

Chess.com hasn't released the methodology for their CAPS evaluation ( now called Accuracy) or the move classifications yet.

Until then, you're just going to have to come up with your own theories.

You might post whatever games you saw with that evaluation. Perhaps someone can help you figure it out.

Hmm alright then so we will never know? 

I know @jdcannon said he was considering it in an older thread. 

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't reveal it.

Can you link that thread?

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/site-feedback/is-accuracy-a-joke

It is when the best move according to computer is in evaluation with the second move 3pts or more difference so even if it is a simple recapture or forced only move it says brilliant so dont get exited by that.

My guess would be a move a single move that changes the evaluation from even to winning (more than +2.00), but all other evaluations for the position show even or worse for several moves out...i.e. a several moves deep tactical or positional insight in an otherwise completely balanced position...a move that is a one-shot that takes deeper calculation ability in a position that otherwise does not look promising.  Much like what you would expect to be called a brilliancy in some super-GM tournament.

I will answer your nitpick with a nitpick.  Engines (traditional ones that produce the evaluations in question, anyway) still have a horizon, so it is still possible to increase the evaluation purely through playing a move that narrows the engine's field of vision...for example if you play a Bxh7+ sacrifice that currently does not pay off for a few moves after the horizon of the depth your engine is searching (say, 30+ ply), merely playing that move will force the engine to deal with the limitations of it's new reality (a more limited reality with less attractive branches to run along) and it will suddenly "discover" the sac to be successful sooner through your move than it might have otherwise.

But yes, usually it's not really increasing the engine's evaluation, just staying on course with best play.  I just said it that way because it was far too convoluted to say it the other way and then have to describe this very thing .

Not surprised because CAPS is incorrect.

I've pointed this out before. There's no such thing as a "brilliant" move as evaluated by the computer because to do so, a comparison must be made between the accuracy of moves and their likelihood of being played by humans, which necessitates a parallel set of algorithms that don't contribute to the chess engine's playing strength.

Also because I've never been assessed as having played a brilliant move by this chess computer.   It's bogus or, at best, an attempt to add interest and a point of conjecture, which is fair enough.

OK I figured it out by looking at the game kindly supplied in post #11. Notice that the computer misassesses the position after Bxg2. That's because the drawing repetition starts about 8 moves later and finishes ten moves in. It is programmed to assess it as brilliant because the continuation, previously beyond its move horizon, is now calculated and indicates that the engine made a serious mistake that alters the game result. It doesn't assess Bxg2 as brilliant, although it should since it's an extra move of calculation, because the drawing continuation is still beyond its horizon.

It constantly misevaluates moves I make and corrects its evaluation next move; therefore a criterion must be in place that it only evaluates a move as brilliant if it's beyond the limits of its move horizon and alters the game result.

And there we have it.

misassesses?

In my opinion, my fork of the queen and king, which led to  mate within a few moves, was "brilliant" , esp against a player over 50 points higher than me. 

https://www.chess.com/live/game/4312982433

You clearly like that word. Does it exist? Well, it should so it does.

I dont know if I like it or not. I've never heard of it. It sounds like a made up word, which I suppose is reason enough to like it. 

I have to say I'm a little disappointed in Ghost. He must be off his game a little bit for not coming up with a better comment.

I make up words normally. That's if I think they should exist. Not if I think they shouldn't of course.

I wouldn't set too much store by all these people who exist to impress. Not that I'm making any accusations. Just a general comment.

It was nothing.

What is this obsession over whether or not  a rather simple computer program called your move brilliant? Do you think that really matters? I can assure you that it doesn't actually make you brilliant

"I make up words normally. That's if I think they should exist. Not if I think they shouldn't of course."

You know who else did that? William Shakespeare. He had this briliant trick of "verbing" a noun that made his prose so rich and surprising.

Let me introduce the Assess family: There's Mr. Assess, Mrs. Assess, young Master Assess, and of course, their lovely daughter Miss Assess. They are much nicer than the Bates family