Can someone explain how this is a great move?

a black rook was on c1, so it was obvious to take it. Can someone explain how this was a great move? this got me wondering on what the computer defines "great" and "brilliant". thanks

it was the only good move, so it gives it a great

A brilliant move is a sacrifice that is the only move that gives you the advantage

it would be very wise of chess.com to eliminate 'great' and 'brilliant' from their move descriptions. there is by definition, no move better than 'best.' adding subjectivity to a topic that should be objective does a service to no one.

it’s obvious, not brilliant unfortunately.

AHEM-- 
We should all really be getting to the meat here-- Chess is a psychological game and most, if not ALL, of the self-aggrandizing "NUMBERS GO UP GOOD NUMBERS GO DOWN BAD" analytical results are most likely more intended to boost-drag players confidence in their skill levels- leading them to play more. Then when they DO lose bad, where do they go to find out why?
AHEM..... .... this IS a world-wide profit driven sport / entertainment industry; and there's a lot of sensitive ego snakes at the top levels of play. Never REALLY know what algorithmic standards you're being judged by-- I've seen "brilliant" moves that were absolutely braindead-- yet I consistently play better moves(leading to victory even down by several points on positional advantage, and I'm supposed to believe they were "blunders".

Wrong. You are mixing up 2 different terms. A "brilliant move" is a sacrifice that's good. A "great move" is the only good move in the position.

None of these terms make any sense, but beginners love being told how "great" and "brilliant" they are, and they even pay money for that experience..

At the 500 rating level, psychological factors play no role. You make obvious blunders, your opponent blunders back, and then you think that you played great. No, you didn't. Blunders are blunders even if your opponent is too bad to spot them.

The problem is that talking down to people and patronising them in that way can slow their progress in chess. These teaching tools are very badly designed.