Brilliant moves are they flawed?

The new game report is a very cool feature on chess.com one part of it is the report that ranks the moves. A part of that is brilliant moves which unfortunately I've never had one. I've played a lot of games and never gotten a single one. Now I know I'm not that good (only rated 1500) but I've seen a couple posts with people rated 1000 or less getting them.

I understand that brilliant moves are moves that are the best move that the engine can find only after a certain depth. I even understand the mini-max algorithm behind it. This leads me to one of three conclusions:

1) I don't have a premium account so the engine doesn't search as deep as would with non-premium 

2) My chess game is bad and all of my moves are shallow and not well thought out

3) Chess.com makes it so premium members get brilliant moves to make them feel like they are improving

Have any non paid members gotten brilliant moves on there analysis? Is it possible the system is flawed by accident/design? Which one of those three possibilities seem the most likely or alternative theories?

Here is an example of a game where there was a mate in 16 that the engine did not fine until the move was forcibly done in analysis:

(not to hard to find as best and it doesn't seem brilliant but still...)

That's not a mate in 16. That's a mate on the 16th move.

I think the engine depth is the same for free and premium members. You just don't get the snazzy report.

I am sure your moves are plenty deep. Often when I have seen people post the moves declared brilliant, there is no obvious reason for it. The computer is seeing something not obvious and the player may have been completely oblivious to the reason.

I have seen non premium members report playing so-called brilliant moves as often as premium members.

Here is a thread where a non-premium member posted a game with a move marked brilliant: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/brilliant-move-analysis-challenge

Here is another:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/analysis-says-brilliant

notmywain sorry for the confusion but that is just a coincidence that the game ended on move 16 there was an actual mate in 16 lol

notmywain sorry for the confusion but that is just a coincidence that the game ended on move 16 there was an actual mate in 16 lol

As far as I can tell, chess.com's algorithm seems to only qualify moves as "brilliant" if in a particular situation it is the only non-trivial move that keeps the game equal* (and all other moves lose) or only winning move (and all others draw or lose). Non-trivial probably is supposed to mean non-obvious (e.g. recapturing a queen after a queen trade is far from brilliant) but I think that how non-obvious these moves are supposed to be is not so clear.

Examples of brilliant moves from recent top games on chess.com:

To answer the rest of your questions, I have seen brilliant moves in the chess.com analysis and I am doubtful that there is any bias for or against premium members' moves. So (1) and (3) are wrong. (2) although true , doesn't quite apply since with enough games played (and analyzed), you'll eventually see one (and the goal should be to try to increase that).

* I recall seeing one of these a long time ago but quickly looking around, can't find one right now.

Ah, time to do analysis to see brilliant moves. I might do 5-10 of my games to see brilliant moves.

I received 2 brilliant moves in the last 3 games

Check out this #chess game: Mikeberry1212 vs manucosmoz - https://www.chess.com/live/game/82365068111

Check out this #chess game: Mikeberry1212 vs mariorizk993 - https://www.chess.com/live/game/82367471811

wow what,

I can force a mate in 16 from move 1? why are we even still playing chess competitively as its a solved game apparently