Why do sometimes I got brilliants moves randomly?

I sacrifice a lot of pieces in many games. I thought they were blunder but sometimes they are brilliant moves. Take a look at this game:

Yes. In the analysis, there is a brilliant move.

I had already talked about this before in another post earlier. The "brilliant" move labeling on chess com is quite arbitrary and I think when a good move involves a non-pawn piece sacrifice it's almost automatically labelled as "brilliant". That for me is not a sign of any brilliancy. In your case 36. Nxe5 although it's a good move there are other moves that are as good (e.g. Nc1, Nc5, etc.). I advise against sacrificing material if there are equally good moves that do not involve sacrificing material. 36. Nxe5 is good for a chess AI maybe because he is sure not to blunder later, but for a novice like you (and me and others), we're almost never sure that down the line we wound't accidentally lose material and need that extra resource. The only times I would approve of a sacrifice is when it is the only good move (or also when it confer a fast mate).

A true brilliant move satisfies four criteria

1. It is a winning move: losing or drawing moves are not brilliant.
2. It is unique: when two moves win, then none is brilliant.
3. It involves a sacrifice: that is aesthetically pleasing.
4. It is a quiet move: no check (+) or capture (x), as these are too obvious to be brilliant.

This has nothing to do with the way chess.com uses the word. And you know it. Your post is pure disinformation, nothing else.

Chess.com uses the word "brilliant" in a much too broad sense as also @2 pointed out.

Chess.com's definition is quite nonsensical, but yours is even more so, so that's a draw.

On the other hand, the OP asked why Game review assigns the "brilliant" label to some of his moves. To answer this, chess.com's definition is relevant. Your definition is irrelevant and nothing but pure trolling.

@9

My definition is the only sensible and relevant one.
The title of the thread is "Why do sometimes I got brilliants moves randomly?" and indeed the chess.com definition as it is leads to randomly assigned "brilliant" moves.

Your definition is fine on its own but it is NOT what chess.com uses. A case in point, one of those labeled "brilliant" we discussed above is absolutely not unique, therefore your explanations do not apply here. I think as mentioned by the moderator and others before, it seems custom-tailored to users and situations, but I think the brilliant moves labeling should be set clearer and made uniform whether you're a 600 ELO or a GM.

Before 36.Nxe5 white is a whole rook up- isn't he?

When you are way up in material, the indicated way to win is simplifying. And 36.Nxe5 does just that: after 26...fxe5 27. Rxe5 white gets 3 pawn for the knight, and greatly simplifies the position- so given the chance, you should definitely go for it..

36.Nxe5 axb4!? 37.axb4 fxe5 38.Rxe5 Kf6 gets "just" two pawns, but still Black's pieces lack coordination and white will be able to pick more material very soon.

So yes, 36.Nxe5 is "brilliant", in the sense it's the least troublesome way to win the game: for a minimal investment of one pawn, it eliminates Black's central control and activates all of white's pieces. An engine may suggest some other move as better, but since you will never be able to play like an engine, you may safely ignore the suggestion and opt for the principled one.

Certainly not relevant because OP is obviously using the term in relation to how chess.com's software assigns the accolade.

Also, I would say, not sensible.

Why exclude drawing moves? Reti's move 1.Kg7 would probably have been regarded as brilliant when he published his study.

And why exclude captures? Had Rigó found the right move in this position it would probably have also been regarded as brilliant. (He didn't - at any rate not if the annotation I read was his, but the annotated move was still regarded as brilliant - and also a capture.)

1) Please refrain from passing your own opinion as some sort of an authoritative statement because novices are also reading here and when they see your statements they might wrongly assume that instead of being the opinions of a simple person, they are statements from top chess masters, which they definitely are not. Nobody mandates you losing material if you can avoid it

2) Even if your statement were true (which it isn't), as I had said very clearly above, it seems a very bad idea for a novice 400 to give away material if it can be avoided. 

Or even when you're not up in material and more is sacrificed, as in the second example in my previous post.

I admit that at a measly 2191 FIDE rating, I am far from being a chess authority. But I certainly understand a few more things about chess than you do.

Want to know what a chess engine says about the knight pseudo-sacrifice? Be my guest.

It says that Nxe5 is white's second best move, and completely winning. And of course an engine has no idea about what a "practical decision" is: all moves are "practical" for its silicon majesty.

Now, if you think that opting for being the exchange and a couple of pawns up with the opponent's pieces scattered and his king quite exposed is a poor decision, I'm afraid you do have to re-evaluate your chess.

Indeed you are far from being an authority on the subject and you seem to have problems understanding what had been repeatedly told that the OP is a novice and is not recommended that he loses pieces if he can avoid it. The easier would have been to ignore you but I didn't want you to pollute the minds of those who come to read here especially novices. Enough said on this.

OK and I am sorry if it was in any way confusing, but I believe I was rather clear in my very first message which was: "I advise against sacrificing material if there are equally good moves that do not involve sacrificing material. 36. Nxe5 is good for a chess AI maybe because he is sure not to blunder later, but for a novice like you (and me and others), we're almost never sure that down the line we would't accidentally lose material and need that extra resource." In any case I do not want to be argumentative I just wanted to get a logical point across. Now me telling others that they are not an authority on the matter does not automatically make me an authority myself, I am merely using simple logic that any of us would be able to use and understand. However if there is anyone who is a master and specialized in teaching chess I would be open to listen to their counter-arguments as long as they address the specific point I mention above.