What qualifies as a "brilliant" move?

I once had an opponent play a "Brilliant" move. I was crushing him in material (I think like 7 points above) and he found a way to perpetually attack my queen. My only available moves were to sac the queen, or repeatedly defend it and draw by repetition. 

I sort of just assumed that it was Brilliant because it turned a near-hopeless position into a forced draw (or significant win). 

How about this?

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-craziest-yet-greatest-brilliancy-like-ever This was very recently posted.

Nope, I have a different definition for brilliant move.

According to what I've experienced till now, brilliant moves are those, which are the only ones which can save the game (either keep the advantage for you or go for a draw). All other moves will lead for a loss for you.

They call it brilliant because it would delay make just as much, and the program in the engine tells you to automatically do one certain move when that is the case, with a small move like tat as an exception to what the move usually is.

I thought I'd post this game with a brilliant move. it is not a defending move, nor the only move in the position. Somehow it is not even the best move, I have no idea how that's possible. I believe it is because a brilliant move does not need to be best, just to be hard to find and needs more depth for the computer to grasp. 

Indeed, but still not the best move ^^ and tbh I'm surprised that a "simple" tactic like that is considered brilliant

I played a very main line in the scillcan and got a brillant. Seems like a rather obvious move for any scillcan player - https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/51670757773?tab=review.

Does anyone know the prerequisites for a brilliant move? Great moves requirements are laid out pretty clearly however Brilliant move is a mystery to me 

For heaven's sake, not this again.

It's just to make people feel good and it's mainly given to weaker players.

These positions are too wild you can't really rely on Stockfish's Suggestion's because we have only the slightest clue the reasoning behind its suggestion or evaluation.  Re1 was a good move but Brilliant implies that it isn't common or natural move.  Hypothetically no offense but a 1000 rated player would play Re1 but an 1800 might play d4 instead, but then a titled player would probably go Re1.  It's so hard to see the truth in the position for a human with so many candidate moves for both sides that what a strong or weak player may think is the best move may be seen as inaccurate by the Engine.  Typically when an engine swings an evaluation like that can be a sign that a really strong move was played, but it mainly is a sign that the position is do chaotic that the engine isn't even sure what is going on in the position

"Brilliant" moves have now become almost meaningless.

dont know

that's a blunder my guy

I got a brilliant move vs a very weak bot...
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/computer/17120355?tab=review

i dont think it was that hard to find though

A sacrifice that leads to a winning position/ or a critical sacrifice to avoid checkmate(which was my first brilliant.)

The post you answered was written 3 years ago. Presumably the author has realized long ago what a nonsense his assumption was.

You are wrong. It is not necessarily the best move and it is not necessarily hard to find.

The right answer is in this topic several times, last time by TheRoboticNoob, 2 posts above you.

What's a "thick evaluation bar"?

If a move was the only best move in a position or it was a move that stockfish had a hard time finding, it would be defined as brilliant in many cases.

Not unless material was also sacrificed.

https://support.chess.com/article/2965-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-and-etc