Brilliant moves: way too easy to get now?

If there is only one move to keep the position drawn when its almost crushed and especially if its not an obvious one, I would count it as a brilliant move too because it is hard to find but very needed at the same time. I like quiet move more than sacrifice. Only sacrifices I like are the ones that at first make no sense but o ly when you look deep enough you realise how powerful that move is.

e4 d5 = scandinavian brilliant move

I agree that brilliant moves have become way too easy. In the 9 months of playing on chess.com before this change I made 1 brilliant move (granted I'm not a paying member so I can't analyze every game with an engine) but in the few weeks since this change was implemented I've made 3 "brilliant moves" and while my rating is higher now than it's ever been, I wouldn't call any of those moves special. I thought the brilliant move I made before the change was actually a blunder before it was analyzed.

yea i just got a brilliant move too.

I'm 100% sure I'm not confusing brilliant move with great moves

I mean, what you are referring to is perfect and ideal play.

it is correct to say that a draw is possibile only in a position that is actually  a draw, only if we are considering perfect moves tho.

if that was the case, if a brilliant move was a “move that wins”, those moves would not exist. That is because, by the same hypothesis, you can only win a position that is already winning.

A position is winning even when there is only one move that wins, right? The same as a position is a draw when there is only 1 move that draws and every other loses.

So, finding the only move that wins is the same as finding the only move that draws. There would be no difference between the 2, you just found the best move.

I think the old criterion: "best, and tricky to find too" was preferable. It appears that if there is a brilliant move that isn't the best move, then only the brilliant move shows up at the top of the game analysis tab. I had a game against a bot where I was White and where 19. Bxf6 comes in 4th place according to Stockfish 14.1 on my laptop, but is considered brilliant, so that only it appears at the top of the analysis tab and not 19. Bf5, which is best according to Stockfish, Maximum Analysis and the browser engine. At depth 41,  Bf5 is evaluated at +9.33 while Bxg6 only gets +6.91. I think it would be preferable to display the best move along with the brilliant move played. The game against the bot is shown below:

I've had 3 brilliant moves in the last week. My understanding was that it was a move the engine thought was sub-optimal when it played but later turned out to be the best move. One of mine was a bishop sac that enabled a pawn to safely promote. Another was castling. Another was pinning the knight to the king with a bishop. None were particularly spectacular and now it begins to make sense!

I’m 415 and I got brilliant for castling

They want to make us noobs feel good and play more but it's pretty transparent that's the case lol

I once got brilliant for a move my opponent forced

Now I agree: they award them way too liberally. These sorts of moves should be rare!

It's just a buisness decision to get us lower rated noobs hyped and keep us on the site.

I have c5, a5 as a brilliant move. Is this the true brilliant move you were saying?!

Bonus: I had an excellent move as a brilliant move next to a best move!

List:

1. Nxb4
2. c5
3. a5
4. O-O
5. Ba6+
6. Bxb2+
7. Rxb3 (Excellent, but brilliant)
8. Qe8+

True brilliant: c5, a5, O-O

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/85327411141?tab=review

How was ne4+ not a brilliant, it was a knight sac that was the top computer move.

it was a decent move.....Qc2 worked better.....gg though...

I still get loads of brilliants these days that I don't deserve....they should be great moves instead...what are truly brilliant are just labeled the best moves for some reason....