i just got a brilliant move in a blitz game
Brilliant moves are not that rare
Sort:
literally a knight sack to fork 2 pieces
Dec 18, 2021
0
#24
Marcyful wrote:
JubilationTCornpone wrote:
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.
I think this gives scope to moves which "make it harder to win," so could be "?!" as a move. Hubner was more stubborn about this than Nunn. I am pretty sure he considered, if the game is still won, then it's still won. If it's still drawn, then it's still drawn. If it isn't, then that's when you break out the "?" because you've changed the result.
Of course the analyst should still point out the better move. But no markings. And especially, never any "!" because if the move is right, then that is what you are supposed to do.
I think he said something like, since we are always looking for the right move anyway, the idea of blunders and brilliancies is just an expression of excitement.
i like cheese
and good moves
PILOTOXOMXD wrote:
i just got a brilliant move in a blitz game
happening way 2 often now i got like 3 in 5 blitz games
"brilliant" moves on Chess.com often aren't particularly brilliant either
facts
Laskersnephew wrote:
"brilliant" moves on Chess.com often aren't particularly brilliant either
its legit sacks for a mate in 2
Jan 5, 2022
0
#32
About a year or so ago brilliant moves actually meant something. Like tor me maybe 1 in 50 games got a brilliant. Then they made it really easy to boost ppl's confidence or something.
A lot of sacrifices are quite simple and routine. Good moves, but nothing "brilliant" about them
A bit speculative, but I'm led to believe that the recent restructure that tailors to more inexperienced players with the restructuring of CAPS—now CAPS2—could be linked to this. Marking more moves as brilliant spurs players to reanalyze games and particular lines; encouraging this routinely develops instinct on sound vs. unsound sacrifices and tactical sequences.
Thatsucks wrote:
About a year or so ago brilliant moves actually meant something. Like tor me maybe 1 in 50 games got a brilliant. Then they made it really easy to boost ppl's confidence or something.
Yea i remember when ppl used to get a brilliant move, they made forums about them. They were coveted. Now they handed out like candy. Its even got to the point where Brilliant moves aren't even the best move. In a kingside attack in one of my games, I sacked my Bishop on a pawn protecting their king because it was pinned by my queen. It was pretty much over at that point, but I could have taken their queen instead of going for their queen. Taking their queen and developing left the game at 11.8 cp, while the sack was at 11.6 cp. The sack was considered brilliant despite the fact that it was not even the best move.
verylate wrote:
JubilationTCornpone wrote:
I think he said something like, since we are always looking for the right move anyway, the idea of blunders and brilliancies is just an expression of excitement.
PILOTOXOMXD: "the sac was considered brilliant despite..."
But it had glitter on it! Who knew that chess.com's auto-analysis could calculate glitter factor?
xD
but seriously speaking, i prefer accurate moves rather than some flashy risk play
at least at higher levels. As long as my opponents are gonna be noobs, i'll be as flashy as I can cuz they don't always know how to punish it lol
Marcyful wrote:
How is the last pic even remotely brilliant? To me that's just a clean hanging of the knight
if white knight took black knight in d4, black knight on e4 can go f2, forking the rook and the queen. Not sure.
Sak-101 wrote:
Marcyful wrote:
How is the last pic even remotely brilliant? To me that's just a clean hanging of the knight
if white knight took black knight in d4, black knight on e4 can go f2, forking the rook and the queen. Not sure.
If white plays Nxd4, black's Nf2 would just be met with Kxf2 and you lose both knights for no reason.
Sep 4, 2022
0
#40
Marcyful wrote:
Sak-101 wrote:
Marcyful wrote:
How is the last pic even remotely brilliant? To me that's just a clean hanging of the knight
if white knight took black knight in d4, black knight on e4 can go f2, forking the rook and the queen. Not sure.
If white plays Nxd4, black's Nf2 would just be met with Kxf2 and you lose both knights for no reason.
I think I had a deep plan, but I forgot what the plan was. However, there is a positional advantage too. Now I am too lazy to re-analyze this lol
innacuracies worsen your position, albeit not as much as straight up blunders or mistakes. Its gonna take an innacuracy or worse for you to even or win the game