Are "Brilliant moves" in computer analysis just any decent sacrifice now?
Sort:
m_connors wrote:
They are very, very rare. I actually received one. In all of the moves from all of the games - one. And as some have noted, they have never received one.
The definition of Brilliant, I believe, is a best move hard to find. So, in my case, I think it was more luck than skill. Ok, all luck . . .
bros boasting about a brillient move
they arnt that rare
One requirement is that material is sacrificed
Yeah
2 years late but after a couple months got my first Brilliant move. https://www.chess.com/game/19bf42e0-db1e-11ed-9b57-73029701000f
Won the game by resignation. Not sure why it was brilliant but my accuracy in the game was lower than average but still fair
It's cool to get a brilliant move for a good sacrifice, but a lot of the time it either wont give you a brilliant move for a brilliant sacrifice, or it'll give you a brilliant move for a simple queen trade
When the board gets stifled by excess positional play, sometimes a “good” or even decent sacrifice is needed.
Good sacrifices are one of the key characteristics of tactical play, aka Romantic Chess. It’s one of the things I wish to learn.
Good sacrifices are one of the key characteristics of tactical play, aka Romantic Chess. It’s one of the things I wish to learn.
My only brilliant move was one that I do think deserved being a winning brilliancy but I was so enamored by it that when in the combination leading to it my opponent transposed two moves I overlooked a much simpler win that the transposition allowed (which would not have been deserving of a brilliancy).
I console myself by knowing that without the transposition the brilliancy was required to win, but I have to kick myself for missing a simple win.
PS K+N+P+P vs K+B with the Knight about to be kicked from defending a Pawn leaving the Bishop with lots of chances to sacrifice itself for the last Pawn. I intentionally aimed for the position and opted to sacrifice my Knight and move the Pawns so that one was attacked by the Bishop and the other was attacked by the King but if either one was taken then my King and remaining Pawn were positioned just right so that the other would Queen. I figured on winning a fairly easy K+Q vs K+B endgame.
i got a brilliant by taking a pawn and if the other pawn takes back, I get mate with a queen and rook battery
DailyRobloxNerd wrote:
Brilliant move's are all about unavoidable forced checkmates as long as you do the right moves i got my second brilliant today.
After "blundering" on move 57 (I missed a free bishop for a pawn) I received a brilliant move for 58 (sac the knight with an unstoppable sac of one of my two pawns while the other queens). On move 52 I had seen the idea and was so focused on it that I missed the fork on 57.
So a brilliant move could also be a subtle but winning sacrifice.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/475241067?tab=analysis
May 19, 2023
0
#251
Nice win. In the review, would you rather not see a blunder or see a brilliant move?
Mickdonedee wrote:
Nice win. In the review, would you rather not see a blunder or see a brilliant move?
I'm fine with seeing both. In OTB I'm known for ingenious defenses/conter-attacks after falling into a bad position.
May 24, 2023
0
#255
Are brilliant moves rating dependent in game analysis? If so this could explain some seemingly basic moves being considered brilliant.
Who are you
May 25, 2023
0
#257
any decent sacrifice is brilliant, such as this:
In this game: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/78675172945?tab=review
Why do I get brilliants for moves such as a pawn takes pawn or other moves which just look like the best move?
May 25, 2023
0
#259
Trixtys wrote:
Why do I get brilliants for moves such as a pawn takes pawn or other moves which just look like the best move?
There might be a piece somewhere else on the board that you are sacrificing that you didn't realize
