Are "Brilliant moves" in computer analysis just any decent sacrifice now?

Idk I honestly thought the brilliant I made was actually kind of brilliant. The move was a bishop sacrifice that would have led into a rook sacrifice that would have led to mate unless the opponent sacrificed his knight.

Wait I’ll address a few concerns I have with ur response. Firstly, not moving the king would result in losing the queen because I could have walked the king to the left side of the board and then threatened mate with the only move being to sacrifice the queen to block the mate in this line : (After brilliant move) pawn takes on g6, rook takes pawn on g6,king f7 to get out of check, rook to g7 to give another check.

Now in this position the king has 2 moves ke6 or ke8. I’ll go over both

ke8 is followed by rook to e1 check, bishop to d6 is the only move that doesn’t blunder checkmate, and here for white you can take the bishop with either rook because both outcomes result in black losing the queen.

The second option for the king is to do king to e6 (this is way back when we checked the king with rook to g7), this move is equally as bad as it can also lose the queen or even cause the king to get mated.

Anways that’s my view on the brilliance

f-pawn takes leads to a queen and knight versus rook, bishop and knight position in which white is easily winning but it's harder for white to find the win, so Kh8 was incorrect.

<<ke8 is followed by rook to e1 check, bishop to d6 is the only move that doesn’t blunder checkmate>>

Be7. Not Bd6, which doesn't stop the check.

Your analysis seems to be in error but in any case, it's beside the point. I was saying that objectively speaking it wasn't a brilliancy since a stronger player wouldn't have been awarded it, for the same move in the same position, and therefore we can conclude that it's meaningless. Thousands of players have made more obviously good and surprising moves without being awarded it and it seems that it's always the weaker players that get them. Therefore they're nothing more than some kind of publicity stunt.

Unfortunately, there's no easy way to determine how likely brilliant moves are without a more complete understanding of how engines analyze positions (especially with constantly evolving neural networks which are difficult to interpret in the same way that humans would interpret other, more deterministically programmed chess-playing technologies). However, I would consider the loose definition of a brilliant move: a move played by a human player which the computer sees as inferior to the best move it picked in its limited-depth analysis until it conducts a higher-depth analysis to find some way that the human move provides better winning chances than its own best move.

As computers improve (sometimes even by learning from "brilliant moves"), I believe brilliant moves will become rarer, especially with the advent of neural networks which are able to find moves that previously would have only been foreseen at higher depths at relatively low depths, finding current "brilliant moves" easily.

By the same token, I am led to believe that it's entirely possible that a "brilliant move" could be played whose advantages can only be perceived by a computer at a higher analysis depth than they would currently go to in order to determine if a move is brilliant. Thus, that "brilliant move" would not even be identified as such, as the computer isn't even able to (time and hardware-permitting) figure out why that move is advantageous.

I think it's also worth noting that sometimes people find dumber-looking "brilliant moves" and discredit the entire concept, but a lot of this has to do with the computer's style of play. While a human player may see a line giving up material as a tactic and come out with a clear optical advantage, the computer is not able to quickly assure that this move is not losing, and prefer to simply avoid the risk and keep a more solid approach until it has found that the move has a near-zero chance of being disadvantageous.

If you count me and my opponents, it is 3 out of 196

1 by me 2 by opponent

0 as white 3 as black

Optimissed I looked through every line in that brilliancy and I’m completely winning even if the opponent does the best moves. But yeah I have noticed that for some reason higher rated players don’t get awarded brilliancy as often

Ahhh speaking of which, I found a dumb brilliant move here : https://www.chess.com/game/live/23174394303

I have only had 1-2 brilliant move in all my chess.com games till now lol.

The move itself doesn't have to change the evaluation, unless the algorithm has changed.  I got my first brilliant move when my opponent blundered, and there was only one move - possibly only one line - on my part that took advantage of the blunder.  The value of the game changed by some large amount after my opponent's blunder; my move just retained that change for me.

I think what's required in terms of the evaluation change is that the value of the game has to change favorably by a large amount between the end of one's previous move and the end of the "brilliant" move, in addition to the move being "hard to find".

As for "hard to find", I think that means "hard for the computer to find" as opposed to "hard for a human to find".  My other "brilliant" move involved a rather ordinary end game pawn move, from a human perspective; it involved sacrificing a pawn to displace the opponent's king away from the king side and to the center, which permitted me eventually to queen on the king side.  However, "displace the king away from the king side toward the center" is a strategic concept that computers can't grasp easily; in this case, to see the effect of the move, the analysis engine would have to search to a fair depth to see me force a queen.

In the second case there was also some additional complexity because my opponent could also force a queen, so really the issue was not whether I could force a queen, but whether I could win the queening race.  From the computer's standpoint, this move might also have been "hard to find" in that it was the only move that changed the evaluation by a lot, but to retain that value, I was highly constrained in subsequent moves - I had to make exactly the right move quite a few moves deep.

With all the discussion of brilliant moves recently, I do wonder if the software has been changed to make them slightly easier to get.

I ended up getting a brilliant move somehow, it's my first ever and I don´t know why it's considered brilliant lol, Move: King to E5.

Yeah, a few days ago, one of my moves was considered "brilliant", but I'm still not sure why, exactly. (And my following move was a blunder, so...)

Some brilliant moves are basically correct, but some are completely bonkers. I have gotten both types.

Matthew I think the computer didn’t realize that the king had a good space to go to, then realized that e5 was open, so it considered it brilliant despite it just being a computer error

the way I understand it, is that a brilliant move is when there is ONLY 1 good move and any other move tends to be losing... something along those lines

I've been looking at GM games lately. I see a brilliancy in about one in every ten. I've also been looking at a computer chess championship, and the engines do play them more often than the GMs. There was even one game with two of them in a row from one of the engines.

I did it again today! (A "brilliant" move but my next one was a blunder.) Ugh.

Have I mentioned this before? A brilliant move is more or less meaningless. Yet nobody seems to be able to catch on and the constant obsession with it continues.

I'm an utter beginner and love to look at the post game analysis to try and learn something. I was SHOCKED when I found out I had actually made a "brilliant" move. I was even more SHOCKED to find that I actually made two "brilliant" moves in the same game!!! I was very disappointed to lose that game too. All it takes is one blunder... Those were the only "brilliant" moves I have made and I still don't understand why they were considered brilliant. I think I need a good coach.

(I also ran the PGN thru DecodeChess and the "brilliant" moves didn't raise any appreciative eyebrows there. It was just business as usual with that analysis.