Brilliant moves are just sacrifices?

It can be a tactical advantage

nah

nah

"Brilliant Moves are always the best or nearly best move in the position, but they are also special in some way.

We replaced the old Brilliant algorithm with a simpler definition: a Brilliant move is when you find a good piece sacrifice.

There are additional conditions:

You should not be in a bad position after a Brilliant move

You should not be completely winning even if you hadn't found the move.

We are also more generous in defining a piece sacrifice for newer players compared to those who are higher-rated."

https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8572705-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-etc

The difficulty is that what is 'brilliant' should not be easy to find, almost by definition, but computers don't think like we do... so they can't really tell what's difficultto find, what's 'briliant' for a human. Early on, the idea was to mark as 'brilliant' , moves that were game changers, yes, but that were also not recognized even as the best move until the position was analyzed to a certain depth. Sounds good but, unfortunately, turned up many weird results. So, in 2022, they replaced that definition with a new one (above).

You were wrong. Look at the article linked above.

It doesn't matter what ChatGPT says, it's just a BS generator which is wrong more often than not. And Google's AI is even worse, it's extremely dumb and misleading.

Well, it doesn't have to be surprising and can even be completely obvious... so, it's easy to see why many think the classification is kind of a joke, just like Game Review's rating estimate, another thing that is very difficult for a computer to calculate, so it;s never much to be trusted and definitely, predictably, tends to err on the side of being too generous.

"Oh, you say I played just like a 2000?"

Sometimes a quiet move can be brilliant, but it is extremely rare and usually indirectly sacrifices a piece anyway.

Take this game, for example:

Obviously, humans use the word as they like. But chess.com uses it as written in the article linked above.

I'm with @magipi... taking it seriously is a mistake. If pressed, I'll suggest ignoring it. It's worthless or very nearly worthless. If you really want to analyze your game, there are much better tools. It's not exactly 'wrong' that Game Review is all about just making people feel much the same as if they'd shared the game with a friend... feedback is the goal, feedback that satisfies, not analysis. This explains why won games are much more likely to be reviewed than lost ones, by the way. Lost games, players just want to forget. A win, however... a little hug and pat on the back if only from a computer program. Game Review is very popular, just not the right tool if you're wanting to learn something from your game, in which case you don't want to ignore losses and should use a different resource. There are many options, most of them free.

I'm not sure what that means but it's funny. And Game Review, correct, a little dumb, you could say.