Brilliant Moves in New Game Analysis Report

No

But do you know why?

A lot of stuff going on, but you can skip to the last annotations...

Wow - came here to find out what a "brilliant" move was in the engine.  Sorry I did.

In my opinion, brilliant moves usually comes from a bad match. Because, the engine works to find the best moves if the opponent makes best move as well. The depth between finding best move against an all best move match is easier for the engine, instead of finding best move on a board where you and your opponent makes a lot of mistakes and blunder.

If two GM chess player face each other, than most likely they will always make at least good moves or better. So, the engine less likely to say a brilliant moves, even it is "The best move, and tricky to find too". That's what Chess.com write about brilliant moves. 

Best move -> The chess engine's top choice

Brilliant moves -> The best move-and tricky to find too

Usually, you make engines from the best player right? So, the engine can find the best move easier on a board where you and your opponent make good moves often. And it's become 'tricky' when the engine try to find the best move on a board with more mistakes.

I think the "brilliant moves" are where the player finds the best move that is at very end of the engine´s scope for finding a move. So, for example, at depth 16, a move is way down the list of candidates and then at depth 20, BOOM!, it´s clearly the best move. For example:

This game report is hilarious: It goes from +4 down to 0 and back again to +4 despite the move in between being forced! There was no blunder, it was simply beyond the horizon of limited depth for the machine to see why I sacrificed two bishops! It gave me a brilliancy for the second and a best move for the first.

Nice finish! A common sacrifice since Lasker-Bauer 1889 but always good to see it appear in a game. It's ridiculous that the computer doesn't see the combinaison but I assume chess.com's computer is quite weak compared to a real engine. Another example of this sacrifice except Lasker-Bauer 1889 is the game Taimanov-Shassin 1978. A nice game too.

Thanks for the background info, you seem to have a really strong knowledge of the classics which I just don´t have. I thought of getting Kasparov's My Great Predecessors to have a better understanding of the history of the game. What do you recommend?

I must say, the Lasker-Bauer game is very very similar (Nimzo-Larsen stylebishop on b2, f4 played, deflecting the knight from f6 and the motif) but black put up a better defence. Very impressive from Lasker.

Wow, that´s a great Nimzo-Larsen game from Taimanov. Thanks for the recommendation., stunning finish. I´ve recently decided to abandon 1. b3 as it seems to give black too much flexibility and I think it is suited to stronger players than me as there isn´t always a clear plan available as I find the potential pawn breaks very complex (as opposed to, say, the advance French where I know roughly when and why I should be going for a pawn break).

did you know that Lasker-Bauer used the Bird's opening?

Yep. But my point was that the game had a lot in common with 1.b3 openings and was positionally and tactically very similar to my win which was a Nimzo-Larsen. I was actually referring to the Taimonov game in the second paragraph my post which WAS a Nimzo-Larsen.

Yeah, I know.

OK, cool. Nice puzzle rush rating btw. I´d love to get my 5 minute rating as high as that.

@pinkblueecho:

Thanks you for the compliments. Indeed I have some knowledge about chess because I read a lot of books and amoung all of the books I read the best was in French :

"Le guide des échecs, Traité complet" of Nicolas Giffard and Alain Bienabe . I don't know if it exist in english unfortunatly or other language. It's the perfect book of chess to begin with: tactics, strategies, beautiful games, endgames studies, history of chess from the beginning until 1990-2000 and so on. They are all in this book. About My great predecessor I didn't read it I don't know.

About 1.b3 I think it's a good opening to play at any cadence with whites but you have to study well all the possible set up for blacks to know how to respond. Bobby Fischer played two really nice games with 1.b3 with Whites in 1970 and also Nimzowitsch several times with great ideas and good result.

Here is the games with 1.b3 I mentionned:

Fischer - Mecking 1970

Fisher - Ulf Andersson 1970

Bauer - Rodi 2018

Nimzowitsch - Spielmann 1927

Nimzowitsch - Roseti 1926

Nimzowitsch - Rubinstein 1926

Nimzowitsch - Wolf 1923

oooooooooooooooooh. that makes sense. u see, i dont have diamond so I cant go past 15 depth, and i was wondering why I have no brilliant moves

my five mins is only 36.

omfg its a frigging discussion-some 8 yr old

Says the person with a fortnite pfp? Idk, man.

cool!

I just played my first brilliant move ever. It won me the game by checkmate about 8 moves later, and it turned my opponents capture (which virtually anyone would have played) into an above average move rather than the best move. I am a new player but I have some comments on these brilliant moves. First of all, I am not diamond but my home machine goes to 18 depth, so no diamond needed for the !!. Also, must it never have been played before maybe? I got my brilliant move in a crazy position, and it was a wild move that was crushing but not at all obvious, but it was a 900ish game with many mistakes beforehand by both of us, so maybe a brilliant move is more likely in a crazy position? I am going back to see what the computers choice was for the move, I assume the game was losing without the brilliant move, and if anyone wants to see it I will show it. It is interesting I think, but I have only played chess for 2 months now.

90 percent accurate is pretty meaningless the way it is calculated here.