Great Moves Till Infinity!

Compare the following two screenshots:

They feature identical positions.  And both illustrate identical Great moves by white (screenshot #1 - 33. Kc1 and screenshot #2 - 35. Kc1). 

So both Great moves were the same exact move in the same exact position!  And there were no captures in the interim so literally the exact same move in the same exact position.  

So it appears that if threefold repetition is never claimed and this position keeps repeating itself every two moves white's Kc1 will be marked as Great each time.  And the funniest part of it all is that if Kc1 is not played and white tries either of the two legal alternatives (Ka1 or Ka2) white is dead lost (Ka1 leads to black mate in four while Ka2 met by Rxd1 leaves black up a rook for three pawns and with a winning position) so Kc1 is an absolute no brainer!

I keep running into these mind boggling move grades and accuracy scores.  There seems to be no end to it!

In chess.com's grand wisdom, the order is:  (lowest) Good, Excellent, Best, Great (highest)

You made the best move and it gave it the highest mark... seems reasonable to me.

If it were up to me I would have called Kc1 best each time it was played and call either Ka1 or Ka2 a blunder.  I do not support calling Kc1 great as (even to the untrained eye) it is obvious that Ka1 or Ka2 is just losing for white and should be fairly obvious that black cannot win after Kc1.

And just a technicality, I was not the one so fortunate to play the repeatedly Great Kc1 as I was black but I was so fortunate to play the Great first instance of 31...Rc2+ (rook came from f2) after which came 32. Kb1 Rd2+ and then the first 33. Kc1.

Also interesting is that my 33...Rc2+ and 35...Rc2+, the second and third moves which created the threefold repetition, were not called great but rather were called best.  Now again on 31...Rc2+ the rook came from f2 while on 33...Rc2+ and 35...Rc2+ the rook came from d2 but all three instances of Rc2+ were either the most obvious or only move to save the game.  Just another example of an inconsistency. 

So I'm looking at the usernames... was this a alternate account of yours?

Also it appears your opponent has played no games? @misprefes2

I can't follow your moves without having access to the game.

It was played on another site and I analyzed it on both sites.  Both sites graded the game differently as well.  For instance Chess.com game me 9 inaccuracies while the other site gave me only 4.

theres also brilliant, which counts rook perpetual sacrifice stalemate trap checks

Hmm, weird.

In old time notation (when humans did it) they'd give such a move a box.

Box means it's the only reasonable move. In other words you had to play Rc2, but it's too obvious to give it a !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_annotation_symbols

box in chess.com terms is only legal move, which those were not

talking about-

Oh, chess.com has the box annotation symbol? Interesting, I wouldn't have expected that.

I fell for a stalemate trap like that once.  It turned out though I had a way out of it a few moves down the road if played a certain way but I did not see it and agreed to the draw.

Anyway I could understand giving each move of at least a successful perpetual rook sacrifice stalemate trap either the brilliant or great move designation at least until it becomes repetitive.  In my opinion the Kc1 referred to in the original post was not brilliant or great even the first time it was played.  At least in the rook sac stalemate trap a rook sacrifice is being offered each move.

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/pgn/487KfiA3We

well it is a arrow and isnt coloured in the analysis tab, nor does it count in game review

Well I could understand not necessarily giving each instance of Rc2+ a box (based on the Wikipedia definition) because the engine does list other alternatives that are within the realm of a possible draw but clearly Rc2+ is the way to go.  Now the box could certainly be given for both instances of Kc1 as the two alternatives are clearly losing.