QUEEN SACRIFICE for mate in 4 NOT BRILLIANT?!
Sort:
14 hrs ago
0
#2
Anyway, back over 1950 and into the top 100,000 again. Very pleased about that.
12 hrs ago
0
#3
I'm assuming it's because 28. Rxg7 is also mate in 4. Still, I don't see why an amazing move like that should be snubbed because there's a more "boring" move that achieves the same result.
Well done!...And here's hoping Stockfish learns to not be a buzzkill.
4 hrs ago
0
#4
Fr3nchToastCrunch wrote:
I'm assuming it's because 28. Rxg7 is also mate in 4. Still, I don't see why an amazing move like that should be snubbed because there's a more "boring" move that achieves the same result.
Well done!...And here's hoping Stockfish learns to not be a buzzkill.
Haha those were my thoughts exactly. Like yeah rxg7 is equally as effective but style points should count for something 😭
Fr3nchToastCrunch wrote:
I'm assuming it's because 28. Rxg7 is also mate in 4.
That shouldn't be a problem. On chess.com a brilliant move is "a sacrifice that's good". There is no clause for exclusivity.
There is probably some weird reason why the script decided to not award it, but it's difficult to figure it out.
It doesn't matter anyway.
1 hr ago
0
#7
magipi wrote:
Fr3nchToastCrunch wrote:
I'm assuming it's because 28. Rxg7 is also mate in 4.
That shouldn't be a problem. On chess.com a brilliant move is "a sacrifice that's good". There is no clause for exclusivity.
There is probably some weird reason why the script decided to not award it, but it's difficult to figure it out.
It doesn't matter anyway.
Yeah it’s just an aesthetic validation, but everyone enjoys seeing the brilliancy marker haha
Hey all! Clickbait-y title, I know, but somewhat miffed that this epic move was not given the double exclamation mark it deserves... I imagine because there were actually 2 moves that led to m4, but style points, c'mon...
(Brilliancy added to my analysis to re-balance this injustice!!)