Chess.com, can you please stop marking this move brilliant.

A brilliant move is supposed to be a move that is not only excellent and alters the game's course, but it is not easy to find. Sure it's an early game-changer but this one is pretty obvious by now. I tried to reenact the Immortal Draw and I was shocked that I got this early a brilliant move and one directly following a book move.

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4? Bxf2+! (my opinion)

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4?! Bxf2+!? (Wikipedia)

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Na4 Bxf2+!! (Chess.com)

Chess.com changed the definition of a brilliant move more than a year ago.

Brilliant (!!) moves and Great Moves are always the best or nearly best move in the position, but 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 some other conditions, like you should not be in a bad position after a Brilliant move and you should not be completely winning even if you had not found the move. Also, we are more generous in defining a piece sacrifice for newer players, compared with those who are higher rated. 

https://support.chess.com/article/2965-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-and-etc

@1
A true brilliant move should satisfy 4 criteria:

1. It is winning: moves that lose or draw are not brilliant,
2. It unique: when several moves win, none is brilliant,
3. It involves a sacrifice: that is aesthetically pleasing,
4. It is a quiet move: no check (+) or capture (x): those are too obvious.

Here is an example of a true brilliant move:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031957 

I don't understand why is that bishop move in post 1 brilliant. I think it should be a blunder.

Lol

@rammy235 instead of being a jerk to the new player you could explain why it is brilliant. @Knight_king1014 take a look at the two engine lines in the screenshot. The best move for white is to take the bishop, but that lets the queen out with check on h4, eventually leading to the capture of the rook on h1

Otherwise white ignores the bishop, moves out of check, can't castle, and king is exposed.

I think it should be either a single exclam or followed by a question (interesting move but not the safest option)

I personally disagree here. Rashid Nezhmetdinov's 24...Rxf4!! with Polugaevsky as white, and Bobby Fischer's 10. Bxf7+!! with Reshevsky as black, are deserving of two exclams as they pack a serious punch to the opponent and are not particularly easy to find.

Stockfish has it equal to Bd6, Be7, and Qe7.

One I saw on Reddit two weeks ago, the !! went to the 19th best out of 21 possible moves.  It was the best of three sacrifices - moves 19, 2, and 21.

What if every single move on the board is completely losing except for ONE singular really difficult move that the player has to find in order to force a draw and avoid the loss? Is that not considered brilliant just because it doesn't win the game?

90% of the things you say on the forums are completely wrong lmao

#3: It's not easy to devise an algorithm to determine if something is aesthetically pleasing.

---------------------------------

My definition of a brilliant move would've involved search depth. A move which evaluates much better beyond a depth threshold so that it requires an unusual level of calculation.

Agree here. An example of a brilliant move that involves:

- capture: Rashid Nezhmetdinov as black playing Lev Polugaevsky in 1958. 24... Rxf4!! 25. Rxf2 Rf3+ 26. Kd4 Bg7! 27. a4? c5+. Queen sacrificed for a mate in eight in a king hunt. Nezhmetdinov says this is his best game.

- check: Paul Morphy as black playing (idk what game or move that is) 1... Re8+!! 2. Kxe8 Qxc8+ 3. Ke7 Nxd5+! 4. Kd6?? Qc7# (Paul Morphy's most brilliant moves, #4 out of 5) White gets widowed, and moves into checkmate to keep his queen.

- capture and check: Bobby Fischer as white playing against Reshevsky in 1958. 10. Bxf7+!! Kxf7 11. Ne6! dxe6 12. Qxd8. Black is also widowed and loses his queen. If he doesn't, the king starts running around the board, running the serious risk of checkmate.

ur bio makes no sense: I have played the scholars mate after rating 700: I'm 2000 now. So I think there is hope for me lol. Loads of 2k+ players like me have played the scholars mate above 700, even above YOUR level (1300) which is not even that much above 700. I think we still have hope lol. If ur only 1300 you shouldnt be saying such things

no offense. Of course 1300 is a great rating. but dont talk trash about the scholars mate, especially basing it about a rating when your rating is not that high overall. To some it will be offensive because there are some 1700s that sitll play scholars mate. You should only be trash talking if your high enough rated to actually make a point about it, compared to the rating that you are talking about.