Hi! There's two criteria in finding a brilliant move according to chess.com analysis. The first one, and by far the most important, is that the move has to be the only one in the position that win/draws. Every other move has to result in either a draw or a loss, is another way to say that(engine eval at 0.00 or worse for you). For example, if your in a losing position but have one single perpetual check pattern, that would qualify for this criteria. The second criteria is that the computer has to reach a decent depth. The reason for this is so that not every single recapture be deemed a brilliant move(since it's usually the only one in the position). So in this instance, bg4 was probably the only move that guaranteed a win, and since there were several options that the computer considered prior, it reached both qualifications. In my opinion, brilliant moves and how they're determined is flawed. I think that a brilliant move should be catergorized as a move better than the computers suggestion at a really high depth. However, that isn't the case, so many brilliant moves look fairly ordinary. One thing to point out is that they do have levels of brilliance in the PGN, it could be annotated with ! or !!, with the latter being rarer and "superior".
Why is this move considered brilliant?
Sort:
Hey everyone! Hope you're having a nice day! (Thanks for reading this)
I was just wondering why this move is considered brilliant. (bg4)
(P.S. don't judge the bad game lol)