Having looked at the link, I can see that it does mention that Great and Brilliant moves are classified differently depending on whether you're a good player or a weak one. The same move is "evaluated more generously" for weaker and stronger players. For instance, a move might be deemed to be a sacrifice from the point of view of a weak player, whereas a strong one wouldn't consider it to be a sacrifice at all, because it leads by force to the regain of greater material or the win of the game. A "Great Move" is deemed to be an "only move" that changes the outcome positively, where it wouldn't be achieved in a different way to the same extent. Again, it makes clear that a "Great Move" for a weaker player may not be given as one for a stronger one.
What qualifies as a "brilliant" move?
How do you guys get thick evaluation bars
What's a "thick evaluation bar"?
It's thick in size and you know how normal eval bars display the number as let's say 2.2? These thick ones would display it as 2.25.
That's what I meant.
Are you talking about Stockfish or the chess.com computer evaluation?
Some may say: "Brilliant move is overlooked by engine, tricky to find and, well brilliant." (Not quoting, but saying what most people say.)
But is THIS A BRILLIANT MOVE???
Simple opposition.
That is certainly not
Are you using the game report?
The new game review doesn;t indicate that as "brilliant"
the new brilliant moves definition is "any decent sacrifice"
Move 16 is brilliant, and it is a move that I am QUITE proud of...
the new brilliant moves definition is "any decent sacrifice"
Move 16 is brilliant, and it is a move that I am QUITE proud of...
They gave my greek gift sac and Bxh6, Bxg7 brilliant moves even though its common
They also gave my queen sac for back rank checkmate (!!) when most annotated game only gives (!)
Three great brilliants: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/79468419813?tab=review
They are as follows:
1. uninentionally sacrificing a knight while forking pieces AND TAKING A FREE PAWN because if queen takes its mate in 3 (i didnt see it) (20: Nxd6!!)
2. sacrificing a bishop because if rook takes its mate in 2, Rg8 is essentially forced (still M10 tho) and anything else is mate in 1 (27: Be5!!)
3. sacrificing queen. only move is to take. rook takes rook is mate.
very impressive for me, a 13yo autistic 600 elo (im 700 now)
more in depth explanation on my profile
Three great brilliants: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/79468419813?tab=review
They are as follows:
1. uninentionally sacrificing a knight while forking pieces AND TAKING A FREE PAWN because if queen takes its mate in 3 (i didnt see it) (20: Nxd6!!)
2. sacrificing a bishop because if rook takes its mate in 2, Rg8 is essentially forced (still M10 tho) and anything else is mate in 1 (27: Be5!!)
3. sacrificing queen. only move is to take. rook takes rook is mate.
very impressive for me, a 13yo autistic 600 elo (im 700 now)
more in depth explanation on my profile
Chess is never about age. Autistic ppl can still play good chess as long as they learn and have passion for the game
I know. Im just saying. Mostly its the 600 elo part that matters lol. I just like saying random information. In fact, once I unintentionally doxxed @BCMGF1150 by revealing his hometown in the comments of a geometry dash level
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.
He might mean "normally" rather than within the limited definition employed here. It should be pretty clear that brilliant moves here have nothing to do with brilliance. Well, occasionally they will be genuinely brilliant but it seems a shame that a sales gimmick is used in this way. It's only to create a talking point or point of interest.
Well, you are right in most of your assessment, but the definition that Winewar presented is still complete nonsense. This whole "Stockfish had a hard time finding" was invented by some forum member many years ago (based on thin air), people started repeating it, and it spread like a virus. It pops up again and again even today. It did not make any sense back then, and it certainly does not make any sense now.
Most tactical brilliancies are found by engines in a fraction of a second. Tactics is their strength.
the new brilliant moves definition is "any decent sacrifice"
Move 16 is brilliant, and it is a move that I am QUITE proud of...
They gave my greek gift sac and Bxh6, Bxg7 brilliant moves even though its common
it does not care whether it is "common" or obvious since any sacrifice apparantly is brilliant (which is stupid since imo only sacs that require more than 4 steps of calculation should be brilliant)
The "Stockfish had a hard time finding it" thing is really funny and shows how completely credulous and gullible many people are.
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
He might mean "normally" rather than within the limited definition employed here. It should be pretty clear that brilliant moves here have nothing to do with brilliance. Well, occasionally they will be genuinely brilliant but it seems a shame that a sales gimmick is used in this way. It's only to create a talking point or point of interest.