A Brilliant move is the best move and hard too find is what chess.com says
Brilliant Moves in New Game Analysis Report
Sort:
Oct 23, 2020
0
#123
forked_again wrote:
waynedevaughn wrote:
With best play you can still lose the computer is just letting you know it was a great move the 2800 computer blundered later so this brilliant move let me sac the rook and then mate the king
Your game history shows all wins no loses, many in under 10 moves, many to the same "opponents". You need to be banned along with your other dummy accounts.
you're funny my account isnt fake. one the game I posted was against the engine. also clearly you didnt look hard enough because I have lost many games. Hell I post most of them to instagram. You need to try and make someone feel small online nice try faith_dream_happiness go take a look for yourself I'll make a story about how big of keyboard Warrior you are
Guys guys guys. A brilliant move is move that is better than the “best move” the computer showed. A brilliant move is shown after it has been played.
Thanks for the clarification. I am new to this app and was surprised to see the discourteous responses.
PapaComing wrote:
hikarunaku wrote:
Brilliant move is the best move which the engine can find only after certain depth is reached. So it is difficult to find for the engine.
Does that mean that in a chess game most of the best moves are easy to find? This again means that playing a perfect game is pretty easy since the best moves are easy?
For a computer, best moves are VERY easy to find. Mr. Jalaal in the discussion earlier seems to heavily underestimate them 
the computer finds them in a blink. When a computer says 'best move' it's something like 'good boy human!' but the brilliant moves, those are the real ones. The computer will need significant processing power to find them, because they are more multiparametric in the multidimensional collective pathfinding search space. Papers on it are open source, for a reference. Just imagine that an engine like AlphaZero can already see the outcome of the game right from the start. It just adapts its pathways to take, to find the quickest route to checkmate. It is nothing 'hard' for the computer, easy vs. hard are human terms. To understand brilliant 'computer' chess, we have to leave everything human behind. It is something (still) alien.
taywave3160 wrote:
a brilliant move is a move that the engine doesn't see at first
I'm a frayed knot.
Alas for us mortals, computers are far superior at deterministic stuff like chess.
When it reads a 'brilliant' move, it is more an encouragement for us, like 'I wouldn't have expected that from a human'. The computers sees the games from start to end with all its multiple pathways to mate.
SNUDOO wrote:
did you know that Lasker-Bauer used the Bird's opening?
Larsen also did. It's actually not bad up to a certain level say up to 2500. But after that, it becomes easy to demolish because of weaker endgame structures. His own system also couldn't beat Spassky, these are systems to become a GM maybe but after that, it's down to business.
More on-topic, the depth is being stated as determining the brilliancy of a move.
I would have to add that what defines brilliancy further should be the gains and the means to get there, both materialistically and positionally. If we can gain a rook with a reinforcement + interference + sac + check that's four pro-level maneuvers in one routine, that's better than just the best move to checkmate.
I wonder how this is programmed but I heard the chess.com engines are pretty up to speed.
For example the Bd2 move in front of the queen mentioned at the start of the topic is quite brilliant because it prevents the exchange since the queen is part of an upcoming knight fork. And there are possibly more of these possible routines. Overall white does not want to exchange pieces here because its endgame structure will be much weaker. It is paramount to play for win by piece play and tactics.
SNUDOO wrote:
Ravenclaw21 wrote:
I just played this game and both me and my opponent got a brilliant?
I think I played rather badly to be honest
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/5086060570?tab=report
Would you choose either of these as brilliant moves?
Both of you two played badly, yes. I didn’t even look at the game, just the highlighted moves.... lots of reds and orange and yellow lol.
You stumbled upon one
This is because now the queen takes care of the light squares, with a dark sq. bishop available this leads to checkmate even being down in material like that. You always need multiple pieces to mate and that's the way to do it for that game. Always go for the win!
Das747 wrote:
In this game, I played a brilliant move, although I'm not sure why is it not just another best move. Can anyone explain?
My guess is that in this situation the move means that while you were losing, now the tides turned and you are winning.
😂😂
Fenerbahçe jek hakı ve bir o yana bir bu yana ilk defa bir Türk vatandaşı olan bu tür şeyler aldığıma bir fotoğraf paylaştı bu kadar çok seviyorum bu adamı seviyorum bu şehrin en çok kazandıran site bir fotoğraf paylaştı bu kadar kolay bir şey var da ben de seni çok seviyorum bu kızı çok seviyorum bu adamı takip edin geri takip var etkileşim bu kadar çok şey var t yok mu bu kadar çok şey var da
I don’t really know about either brilliant moves or best moves. If you need information on lousy moves versus terrible moves, reach out to me
Nice
"Brilliant" moves are really just cool moves that are tricky to find. They sometimes, although rarely appear in puzzles if you try to analyze them.
I have made one "brilliant" move because it was considerably hard to find.
Nov 14, 2020
0
#137
To be honest with you guys I had my first ever brilliant move, but to me it was a logical continuation on the attack I was playing, it was a bishop sac on hu on account the knight was awal from d6 which in turn allowed me to rip his kingside apart, no biggie really
Honestly, most of the time it's just 2 things ; It's a critical move and it's not as obvious as taking a hanging piece.
Nov 28, 2020
0
#140
Snowcrashed wrote:
- Jalaal, you’ve been very gracious in your responses to Hikarunaku (which I don’t think is deserved). Yours was the best answer on this thread IMO, and his responses don’t make sense. At minimum, he’s confused and discourteous, my guess is that he’s just garden variety troll.
Snowcrashed, it seems like they both understand something you don't; read what Hikarunaku said and try to understand.
Your apparent assumption is that the brilliant depth is a limitation of the engine's ability, when the definition seems to allow this to simply be a setting for how deep it goes before it stops looking for better moves.
On that note, do better moves result in a more direct path to victory, fewer possible outcomes of losing, greater material gain, or some combination thereof? If it's a combination, what's the chosen hierarchy for what trumps what?
I wonder what depth does the engine classify a move as a brilliant move