How Was This Move NOT a Brilliant Move!?

Sort:
GMHoodChess

I just played a wild game where I sacrificed my rook for a crushing attack, and somehow, the Chess.com engine had the audacity to call it "blunder" instead of "brilliant." 😤

Here's the position:

I saw my opponent’s king was exposed, and I knew this rook sac would lead to either checkmate or massive material gain. I calculated multiple lines, and every single one was winning for me. So I went for it. BOOM. Rook gone. My opponent had no chance.

After the game, I was hyped to see that beautiful blue "Brilliant Move" highlight... but nope, just a ‘BLUNDER’ like I casually blunder my rooks every day. 😭

Can someone explain what actually counts as a ‘Brilliant Move’ these days? I thought sacrifices that force a winning position were supposed to be brilliant.

Here's the full game if anyone wants to check it out:

Let me know what you think—was this a robbery or am I just coping? 😂

xtreme2020
The game didn’t actually post but the fact that chess.com said it was a blunder means you miscalculated, and it was a loss of a rook that didn’t actually gain you anything if your opponent played the right moves.
GMHoodChess
xtreme2020 wrote:
The game didn’t actually post but the fact that chess.com said it was a blunder means you miscalculated, and it was a loss of a rook that didn’t actually gain you anything if your opponent played the right moves.

chess com is clearly wrong and needs to update my move

GMHoodChess
chiarafrancescato wrote:

It doesn't force a winning position because the opponent doesn't have to take. And why sacrifice the rook instead of the bishop? Both achieve the same thing, no?

that's fair chirara. let's play sometime so i sack more pieces

Kraxter16

[mod edit: removed advertisement] -S19

ArchAnluain
You win some arguments with the analysis engine you lose others
magipi
chiarafrancescato wrote:

It doesn't force a winning position because the opponent doesn't have to take. And why sacrifice the rook instead of the bishop? Both achieve the same thing, no?

Rxe3 isn't only "not winning". It's losing. It's a blunder.

White ignores the rook, plays the obvious 18. Nxd5 instead. Now the c4 knight is hanging and the e3 rook is hanging. Black can play Nxd5, but that doesn't change much: Qxc4 and black still loses a piece.

JayThe10th
Kraxter16 wrote:
[mod edit: removed advertisement] -S19

advertising in chess.com is crazy