Yesterday, my opponent played a brilliant move according to chess dot analysis. But, in that very same game, he missed a mate in 2 and lost the game eventually.
Has anyone ever played a brilliant move??
Sort:
its because its the olnly move in the position
Then it would be the best move, not brilliant
Best moves are the engines top choice, while brilliant moves are moves that the engine missed completely.
then why does engine consider best move as best move and brilliant
Nov 28, 2020
0
#69
Just got my first “Brilliant” on my last game played a couple hours ago
Had my first ever brilliant move today on a really weird position of a Scandi opening. I didn't know how to play the position and sadly I blundered the win pretty hard, including the brilliant move... admittedly I didn't see it as a great move when I played it. Looking back on it, had I taken the recommended moves it likely would've led to mate which is what I was fishing for to begin with. Ah well.
Edit: Move 31.Bxe2; I played black
I think we all make brilliant moves, just unintentionally lol
Nov 30, 2020
0
#74
Computer said I was losing until I played 22. Rd8+ it was mate in 5. I completely panicked and missed the idea at the time which was to pin the bishop.I still won the endgame somehow but I am annoyed I didn't see it.
oof
no way
Brilliant Moves aren't rare at all. In fact, they're quite common! If you are talking about getting a brilliant move on chess.com on the other hand, that is a completely different story. Id say I've gotten around 10 or so brilliant moves in my entire chess career (on chess.com)! You see, computers think differently about brilliant moves than humans. In a humans perspective, a brilliant move would occur a lot more often than in an engine perspective. Off course, most site analysis systems come from the "stockfish platform" (mostly Stockfish-8), and as you probably know, Stockfish is one of the best chess engines in the world. So setting aside a human, obviously you can't compare.
stockfish brain > human brain
kinda sad
alexchenchess wrote:
stockfish brain > human brain
That's not true. A human was smart enough to create stockfish, and the only thing stockfish can do well, is play chess. There are many other categories other than chess. You just have to understand that humans are smarter than engines. Stockfish would never be able to create a human.
Danish gambit theory is brilliant move
Understandable have a great day