What qualifies as a "brilliant" move?

But the computer probably again overlooked it...

So basically, brilliant moves exist because computers aren't perfect.

yeah. and some brilliant moves are the easiest moves to find.

Oh this makes sense on what brilliant moves are, I never knew how you got them. Some of those 'brilliant' moves are pretty stupid though.

Alekhine's Gun is this formation(excluding the king), anywhere on the board

Brilliant moves are going to depend on engine depth.

For example this game:

37... Nd3+ gets marked as "good", taking the evaluation from -22.5 to -13.8. Self analysis at depth 22 puts e5+ ("best move") at -M9, and Nd3+ at -M13. Yet, as soon as you play the move, it's now -M11.

Running it through a proper stockfish instance, running under Fritz:

It's actually mate in 7.

e5+ is mate in 8. Yet I didn't get a "brilliant move" here, because the computer didn't actually see that it had been outdone.

a brilliant move is a move that takes a losing position and makes it a drawn or winning position. Or if it takes a drawn position and makes it winning. Hope this helped.

I think a Brilliant move is the only move in a position that wins, all others lose or draw, Or the only move that draws, all others lose. 

Sacrifice queen for checkmate

Just to brag, here's my first ever brilliant move (that I analysed). The eval bar stayed level though. https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/317095470

I think that a move is considered brilliant, if the engine does not think it is the best move. But after a deep  analysis  it finds that it will give the player an advantage or equalize the position. 

The engine is bad. It detects it a good or best move move even if alphazero did... Which is considered a brilliant move according to humans..

I can't recall ever getting a "brilliant" move awarded by the computer. It usually wants you to equalize material after a gambit (duh) and it has pushed me toward a drawish line when I went for a winning continuation. So much for the computer.

A brilliant move is not a move that engine can't find. It is a move that engine sees as the only move that doesn't lose the position, or the only move that wins (or the only move that draws). Engines usually find brilliant moves at depth 12-18 as I've noticed. There's also 2 levels of brilliancies. Level 1 is just 1 exclamation mark (you can see both levels in the download tab) and Level 2 is 2 exclamation marks. Level 1s are usually at least 3 moves deep, whereas level 2s are 5+ moves deep. Sometimes engine can give brilliant for obvious moves because that move can have an unobvious continuation.

This move looks obvious; taking back a pawn, but the reason it's considered brilliant is because after c6(defending the pinned knight), you can sacrifice this knight on f6 with check, which gives white a huge advantage.

A real "brilliant move" should never  be an obvious move. Because some engine thinks an obvious  move is a  brilliant move  does not mean the engine is correct...

A brilliant move is always also the best move.

However the  best move is hardly ever a  brilliant move.

Very few people have ever played a brilliant move.

It shouldn't be an obvious move, yes but the developers have coded it this way. Also to your last point, many people have played a brilliant move before, but they probably haven't analyzed all their games yet to find out. I myself have gotten it around 8 times.

While the AI can be trained to understand what an obvious human move is, the bunny doubts chess AI is trained that way.  But then what does a dumb bunny know?

Chess.com User Agreement

Are you able to read and comprehend? Then the User Agreement is for you! 

No spammers and advertisers allowed!

Started long before you joined. 

Link: https://www.chess.com/legal/user-agreement