Yes. They revised the definition of "brilliant" recently on chess.com because the previous one often yielded moves that people couldn't understand as brilliant.
Now, it seems they have gone too far the other way. Any decent sacrifice gets marked as brilliant.
Yep. I actually never understood this feature to begin with, but I guess it’s something good to attract the youngsters and encourage them in a way...
Pretty much
Brilliant just means that you found a slightly difficult move that was good
There are some tactics are just the easiest sacks ever, and some are insane mate in 12 tactics
idk if its just me tho. I sack everything way too often, and it sometimes pays off, but sometimes doesn't. So anything that is a sack and gives a check is the first move i consider, even if its just a simple blunder, but anything that is remotely positional takes me like 10 minutes to calculate out, which is why endgames are a pain for me
idk if its just me tho. I sack everything way too often, and it sometimes pays off, but sometimes doesn't. So anything that is a sack and gives a check is the first move i consider, even if its just a simple blunder, but anything that is remotely positional takes me like 10 minutes to calculate out, which is why endgames are a pain for me
I know what you mean. Usually in endgames, I need to push my vision and make it wider so that I can calculate move ahead. The thing I like about endgames is that I don't have to worry too much about tactics, but that doesn’t mean endgame doesn’t have tactics. It's just that the tactics doesn’t feel that 'hard to spot' for me. So, I just shift the focus to thinking moves ahead instead of calculating sharply. Funny how I sac even endgames. Quite often actually. Like some fancy tricks like sac-ing the bishop to get a pawn and then when the opponent recaptures with his bishop, I used rook to check and grab the bishop back. As a result, I am getting an extra pawn. Just an example. This kinda tactic I am talking about. Believe it or not, I had many sharp moments in endgames where I won by sac-ing multiple pieces. I wish I had the link. God knows where I lost those games in the history xD
How is the last pic even remotely brilliant? To me that's just a clean hanging of the knight
after a few trades it forces the Knight off of f3
that leaves h4 open for your queen, followed with g3 Nxg3
Hey can someone analyze my latest games for brilliant move
They are not very rare, or very important! Did you win, or did you lose? That's what counts!
I think Robert Hubner, and to a lesser extent John Nunn, have some commentary and recommendations along these lines.
There really is no such thing as a brilliant move. There is the best move, and other moves, and not much else. Any analysis should give the best move, if it not the one played, so that goes without saying.
It is possible to consider a move which is the only one to save a position as a "!", and I think Nunn looked at it this way, but Hubner wouldn't even accept that.
Beyond that, in terms of moves that are not best, they either change the result or they don't. So, a move that turns a win into a draw, or a draw into a loss, is a "?" move. A move that turns a win into a loss is a "??" move. Anything else leaves the result the same, so it doesn't matter.
Personally, as far as this goes, I think they are correct...
I think Robert Hubner, and to a lesser extent John Nunn, have some commentary and recommendations along these lines.
There really is no such thing as a brilliant move. There is the best move, and other moves, and not much else. Any analysis should give the best move, if it not the one played, so that goes without saying.
It is possible to consider a move which is the only one to save a position as a "!", and I think Nunn looked at it this way, but Hubner wouldn't even accept that.
Beyond that, in terms of moves that are not best, they either change the result or they don't. So, a move that turns a win into a draw, or a draw into a loss, is a "?" move. A move that turns a win into a loss is a "??" move. Anything else leaves the result the same, so it doesn't matter.
Personally, as far as this goes, I think they are correct...
Thats a very methodical and logical way of looking at it, but it also takes away the reward of feeling proud after you play a great game
I think Robert Hubner, and to a lesser extent John Nunn, have some commentary and recommendations along these lines.
There really is no such thing as a brilliant move. There is the best move, and other moves, and not much else. Any analysis should give the best move, if it not the one played, so that goes without saying.
It is possible to consider a move which is the only one to save a position as a "!", and I think Nunn looked at it this way, but Hubner wouldn't even accept that.
Beyond that, in terms of moves that are not best, they either change the result or they don't. So, a move that turns a win into a draw, or a draw into a loss, is a "?" move. A move that turns a win into a loss is a "??" move. Anything else leaves the result the same, so it doesn't matter.
Personally, as far as this goes, I think they are correct...
What about inaccuracies? I know 1 or 2 isn't enough to affect the outcome of a game, but I think a whole lot of them like 6 or 7 might be enough to make a player lose.
depends on who you ask
I really didn’t want to brag but after seeing so many posts about getting "brilliant" moves, I decided to post this. My point is that I get brilliant moves quite often. As a result, I don't find this quite rare/special. The pics I am posting here are recent ones, but I got more in the past which I didn’t bother to screenshot. I usually get one brilliant moves at least once in every four or five games. I am pretty sure I am not the only one?