Brilliant Moves in New Game Analysis Report

ericchang12
Ice_God wrote:

ericchang12, i believe you may have used an engine in that game.  No way is someone with your rating having 99.5% accuracy and 85% move rate, that is better than grandmasters.  You could not beat komodo boss

It is not fair to judge a person based on only their rating. Rating is just a way to judge a person's effort on the website, not how good or bad a player is. I did not use an engine, but I did use another method. I played against the Komodo Boss in the unrated mode, so please do not accuse me of cheating. "You could not beat the Komodo Boss" is not only rude, but also not true, as I have just made a draw with it. 

kJDG12

It's probably a game played with an assistance of an engine but who cares since it's unrated mode against another computer. There is no point to forbid an help from another engine in this case.

Sred
JalaalSuify wrote:

...

This is because "brilliant" is a move by the player only assessed by the engine to be better than what the engine would suggest as "best" move.

...

That doesn't make any sense. How would the engine know that the "brilliant" move is better than what the engine considers best? Do you have any evidence?

Manikdj789

Brilliant move means the move which the engine finds at a depth of 20.

Prometheus_Fuschs
Sred escribió:
JalaalSuify wrote:

...

This is because "brilliant" is a move by the player only assessed by the engine to be better than what the engine would suggest as "best" move.

...

That doesn't make any sense. How would the engine know that the "brilliant" move is better than what the engine considers best? Do you have any evidence?

Because what the engine thinks is best is not set in stone, it's often the case that playing a better move than the one suggested changes the evaluation of the engine and if you go back to the original position it'll now suggest the move you played.

 

There's also the (obvious) fact that it'll* change it's move choice as time progresses.

 

*OFC, not always.

LukasKasha

Don't know if anybody else has mentioned this, but I find a lot of times, you do the initial analysis, it reports zero brilliant moves, but then when you go through each move, it reports some as brilliant. 

tebansv

Mine is even worse

tebansv

just because I took his queen, they said it was brilliant

 

Sred
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Sred escribió:
JalaalSuify wrote:

...

This is because "brilliant" is a move by the player only assessed by the engine to be better than what the engine would suggest as "best" move.

...

That doesn't make any sense. How would the engine know that the "brilliant" move is better than what the engine considers best? Do you have any evidence?

Because what the engine thinks is best is not set in stone, it's often the case that playing a better move than the one suggested changes the evaluation of the engine and if you go back to the original position it'll now suggest the move you played.

 

There's also the (obvious) fact that it'll* change it's move choice as time progresses.

 

*OFC, not always.

You're missing my point: we are talking about the final evaluation of the analysis feature on this site, not an ongoing (changing) calculation.

Prometheus_Fuschs
Sred escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Sred escribió:
JalaalSuify wrote:

...

This is because "brilliant" is a move by the player only assessed by the engine to be better than what the engine would suggest as "best" move.

...

That doesn't make any sense. How would the engine know that the "brilliant" move is better than what the engine considers best? Do you have any evidence?

Because what the engine thinks is best is not set in stone, it's often the case that playing a better move than the one suggested changes the evaluation of the engine and if you go back to the original position it'll now suggest the move you played.

 

There's also the (obvious) fact that it'll* change it's move choice as time progresses.

 

*OFC, not always.

You're missing my point: we are talking about the final evaluation of the analysis feature on this site, not an ongoing (changing) calculation.

Then it'll likely tag it's best move as brilliant for other reasons, the reality is that nobody is sure what "brilliant" means here.

Sred
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
 

Then it'll likely tag it's best move as brilliant for other reasons, the reality is that nobody is sure what "brilliant" means here.

I'm sure the programmers do know, but you're right, we can only guess. But anyway I stand behind my original argument that the statement

"This is because "brilliant" is a move by the player only assessed by the engine to be better than what the engine would suggest as "best" move."

doesn't make sense.

forked_again

In Lucas chess there is a similar feature.  A move by move game analysis shows the evaluation after each move.  Normally you can only maintain your level of advantage by playing the best move.  Sometimes however, the computer evaluation goes up after your move, meaning your position was better than it originally calculated.  In other words you found a move that was underestimated initially by  the computer.

BaronVonChickenpants

All my moves are brilliant, even the blunders.

azariyahowens

wow thanks for clearing it up u guysgrin.png

NaN1983

I have never seen the chess.com engine labeling a move as "brilliant" in the basic analysis, only in the advanced (deeper) analysis. If the engine labeled a move as brilliant because it is better than its best option, one could find brilliant moves for the basic analysis as well. In my opinion, a move is called brilliant when it requires a certain threshold depth (defined by the programmer) to be found. Apparently, the basic analysis does not have that depth so by definition no move will be called brilliant.

A few days ago I analyzed an otb game in which my oponent made a move that gave me the option to checkmate in 7 after two sacrifices. I missed it, so the engine told me I blundered. My opponent made an irrelevant move so I got a second chance. This time I saw it, so I sacrified my bishop to start the mating sequence. The engine said the move was brilliant even though it already knew it was the best option.

I analyzed the game again in basic mode, the move was classified as "best", but not "brilliant" for the reason I mention above.

Sred
NaN1983 wrote:

<snip>

 If the engine labeled as brilliant a move because it is better than its best option,...

</snip>

And how would the engine know that?

NaN1983
Sred wrote:
NaN1983 wrote:

<snip>

 If the engine labeled as brilliant a move because it is better than its best option,...

</snip>

And how would the engine know that?

Imagine the computer is analyzing 23.- Bxd2, which can checkmate in 432 moves. The computer can only see 431 moves further so it says 23.- Bxd2 is a neutral move. The move is made. Now the computer is analyzing 24.-Qa1 which checkmates in 431 moves. Now the computer sees it and thinks: brilliant move! I did not see it before!

This is what some people here think it is happening. What I think it is happening is something like

The computer is analyzing 23.- Bxd2, which can checkmate in 432 moves. The computer can see 1000 moves further so it can see it, but it says: wow, amazing move! it took me 432 calculations to see. Since 432 calculations is more than the threshold Mr Engineer has put (e.g. 200) I will labeled it as brilliant.

In the first case, any engine could label a move as brilliant. A potato engine could say, wow! checkmate in 2!! this must be a brilliant move because I did not see it before. In fact, I am a potato and can only see one move further. In the second case, brilliant moves can only be given by analysis that can reach the depth required to label a move as brilliant. This is why the basic potato analysis never tells a move is brilliant

Sred
NaN1983 wrote:
Sred wrote:
NaN1983 wrote:

<snip>

 If the engine labeled as brilliant a move because it is better than its best option,...

</snip>

And how would the engine know that?

Imagine the computer is analyzing 23.- Bxd2, which can checkmate in 432 moves. The computer can only see 431 moves further so it says 23.- Bxd2 is a neutral move. The move is made. Now the computer is analyzing 24.-Qa1 which checkmates in 431 moves. Now the computer sees it and thinks: brilliant move! I did not see it before!

This is what some people here think it is happening. What I think it is happening is something like

The computer is analyzing 23.- Bxd2, which can checkmate in 432 moves. The computer can see 1000 moves further so it can see it, but it says: wow, amazing move! it took me 432 calculations to see. Since 432 calculations is more than the threshold Mr Engineer has put (e.g. 200) I will labeled it as brilliant.

Got it, you mean that the "brilliant" label might be attached later when analyzing follow-up moves. I agree that this is not very likely, because obviously the engine had to make sure that the continuation was optimal, which eventually means that it has to analyze again with sufficient depth.

The obvious implementation for such a feature would be: mark a move brilliant if it's the best move at the given search depth, but not at a (to be defined) slightly smaller depth.