Good move vs Excellent move

Forgive me if this has already been brought up and is just buried in the archives somewhere.

But i have had almost all my games analysized, and i have notice that i have yet to see it point out a good move or an excellent move. Which made me wonder What IS considered a good move vs an Excellent move 

The analysis only points out inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders.

fair enough i suppose... but im still wondering what EXACTLY constutes a good move VS an excellent move

A good start might be to compare the number of good moves to the number of mistakes/inaccuries/blunders and try to find excellent moves based off of the ratio (IE that they are harder to find).

While computers can beat humans though, one thing that they can't do and will never be able to do is append ! to chess moves in such a way that humans will go "Yes, that was a ! move."

Computers just don't understand what impressed us and what we consider easy.

It's amazing that a computer can look at a move like Frank Marshall's golden shower move and say "Evaluation: Mate in 3. Best move" and not have any concept of "Qb6!!!!!"

thanks for the feedback you two... excellent comments

I have been wondering the same for a while, but haven't found a satisfactory answer so far:

Based on the following definition of innacuracy, mistake and blunder given in chess.com:

Inaccuracy" - The computer evaluates that this move resulted in a position that is at least 0.3 points worse than the position resulting from the best move available

"Mistake" - This move is at least 0.9 points worse than the best move available

"Blunder" - This move is at least 2 points worse than the best move available - pretty bad!  :)

I believe that an "Excellent" move is the same as or equivalent to the best move available, whereas a "Good" move is a move that worsens your position up to 0.3 points.

Note that a move that worsens your position less than 0.3 points with respect to the best move available cannot be classified as innacurate, as the analysis itself has some confidence interval. Maybe that move would be classified as "excellent" in a deeper analysis.

NaN

Thanks NaN1983
 

good=! exxelent=!!

From https://es.lichess.org/qa/67/interesting-moves-good-moves-and-brilliant-moves:

That's because - technically - a move cannot improve one's position, but only decrease it. For example, if you miss a fork you had your position decreases by how much ever the fork was. If a position (not moved yet) had a fork and was +0, missing it would be minus something. That's why when a person lets the opponent a tactic but the opponent fails to find it it is accounted as something like mistake-mistake. If the opponent detects the tactic, then it's just mistake-nothing (-0 in position). An amazing sacrifice is amazing - but it doesn't improve one's position (in the view of the engine) - as that was the position's value. To an engine, an amazing sacrifice vs taking a hanged piece is the same. If !! and ! and !? were implemented it would be something like this:
!! = 0,
! = -0.1 to 0,
!? = -0.3 to -0.1

which is absurd. An engine assumes perfect play.

This question pops up a lot of the time, and it is a legitimately interesting query. First I need to say that computers aren't very good annotators. They can spot mistakes, and they can suggest better moves, but they cannot tell you why the move is better.

Another related question is whether it is possible to establish a "risk coefficient" that measures the risk involved in a position based on a player's ACL in it, or the risk involved in playing a second-best or third-best move.

I'm going to look at this some more and report back to this thread with what I find.

Alright, so. I've been developing my skills as a chess player for the past year and a half due to quarantine. by no means am I impressive, however, when strategy fails... I've oddly found that aggressive gameplay (even if its a batshit play) will get on  top of a more experienced player. what's up with that