Chess.com marks the move as a great move but why isn't it brilliant? It's the best move according to the computer, sacrifices material, and is tricky to find.
Can someone explain this?
Possibly due to the fact that there was another good winning move as well.
Ohh cool very nice
UPDATE: Something interesting about brilliant moves is that they can vary depending on the depth of the engine you are using. For example, sometimes a brilliant move will be marked as a great move because both are the best move.
it's not a move difficult to find, simple tactic
That doesn't matter. For an engine, all tactics are easy.
it's not a move difficult to find, simple tactic
That doesn't matter. For an engine, all tactics are easy.
there are tactics where the engine must look several moves ahead: these are more difficult to find. A brilliant move is such a tactic that requires a deeper analysis of the position in order to be spotted
it's not a move difficult to find, simple tactic
That doesn't matter. For an engine, all tactics are easy.
there are tactics where the engine must look several moves ahead: these are more difficult to find. A brilliant move is such a tactic that requires a deeper analysis of the position in order to be spotted
That's not the case on chess.com. There are many instances where super easy and obvious combinations get the "brilliant" label.
Here the reason is probably some technicality in the code.
The simple answer to your question is that the move did not meet the criteria programmed into the computer. Whether a move is brilliant, great, or whatever, is a judgment call. It is not an absolute. A human determined the criteria and that criteria ended up in the program.
Hey there can I help restoring this PNG i dont have the first few Moves and moves 4-7 could be wrong. Here is the moves i dont mind about the conclusion of the game i just want the opening restiored
1.?? ?? 2. ?? ?? 3. ?? ?? 4. ?? be7 5. nc3 bf6 6. bf4 bxd4 7.Qxd4 Be6 8. 0-0-0 c5 9. Qe3 Bc4 10. Bxc4 Na6 11.e5 h5 12. exd6+ Kd7 13. Rde1 Rc8 14. Bxf7 Qf8 15. Bxg8 Qxg8 16. Qe7+ Kc6 17. Re6 Re8 18. d7+ Qxe6 19.dxe8=Q+ Rxe8 20.Qxg7 Re7 21. Qg5 c4
it's not a move difficult to find, simple tactic
That doesn't matter. For an engine, all tactics are easy.
there are tactics where the engine must look several moves ahead: these are more difficult to find. A brilliant move is such a tactic that requires a deeper analysis of the position in order to be spotted
That's not the case on chess.com. There are many instances where super easy and obvious combinations get the "brilliant" label.
Here the reason is probably some technicality in the code.
It's because the code that decides brilliant moves takes into account the ELO of a player.
sometimes i wonder too
Chess.com marks the move as a great move but why isn't it brilliant? It's the best move according to the computer, sacrifices material, and is tricky to find.
Can someone explain this?
Possibly due to the fact that there was another good winning move as well.
It's incoherent, actually, since the other move leaves the rooks on and only wins a pawn.
However, I've been arguing that pseudo-sacrifices like RxN are not real sacrifices at all and therefore cannot count as briliant by Chess.com's own criteria, which requires a real sacrifice for the meaningless award of "brilliant!"
Maybe they've actually listened to me??
However, I actually think it's because the game is already won. Therefore it does not count even as a Great Move, by their own criteria, because a Great Move has to be game-changing.
If I had instead played Nxe5, stockfish thinks the position is 1.5 for white (low depth) and could still result in a draw when played by a human. Rxc6+, however is plus 6.0 so arguably a great move regardless.
Also chess.com says that a brilliant move is tricky to find and the best move but doesn't really say it has to sacrifice and lose material for a positional edge, it can win material back using tactics and still be categorized as brilliant
If I had instead played Nxe5, stockfish thinks the position is 1.5 for white (low depth) and could still result in a draw when played by a human. Rxc6+, however is plus 6.0 so arguably a great move regardless.
Also chess.com says that a brilliant move is tricky to find and the best move but doesn't really say it has to sacrifice and lose material for a positional edge, it can win material back using tactics and still be categorized as brilliant
When I looked at it, I thought that there's a forced win after Nxe5 but that it's difficult. Also I could be wrong, not being the greatest endgame player.
I get what you're saying but such a sacrifice as this is a pseudo-sacrifice because the winning method is completely obvious. I was arguing that it's merely a tactical maneouvre in the same spirit as playing a fork or a skewer and therefore shouldn't be seen as brilliant. Maybe it would be programmed to give it as brilliant if it was played by a 400 rating?
The thing is that GMs play on here and Game Review is ridiculous enough, without giving obvious moves as brilliant, which they might see as insulting. And of course, it IS an insult to a strong player to give an obvious move as "brilliant", so rating strongly influences this. Not that GMs are likely to use Game Review except for laughs.
Chess.com marks the move as a great move but why isn't it brilliant? It's the best move according to the computer, sacrifices material, and is tricky to find.
Can someone explain this?