Interesting how the brilliant sacrifice is based on Bxh6 leading to winning a queen but the game ends before that can occur and it wasn't guaranteed as my opponent could have moved the queen to c7 to eliminate the risk of an absolute pin losing just a pawn. I don't see how it can be evaluated as a brilliant move based on something that didn't happen and wasn't certain.
If he takes the bishop you have an absolute pin on the queen if you play rook e1 otherwise you just win a pawn
But they didn't need to take the bishop and could have moved the queen preventing the absolute pin. It's odd how it's considered a brilliant move despite the absolute pin not being guaranteed.
The definition of brilliant move on chess.com is: ' a sacrifice that is good". Bxh6 is a sacrifice (sort of) and it's good (it's one of the top moves), therefore it qualifies.
The explanation that Game Review gives ("This is the way to win a queen") is another matter. As most explanations given in Game Review, it's nonsense, as you have pointed out. Unfortunately, Game review is extremely bad.
Interesting how the brilliant sacrifice is based on Bxh6 leading to winning a queen but the game ends before that can occur and it wasn't guaranteed as my opponent could have moved the queen to c7 to eliminate the risk of an absolute pin losing just a pawn. I don't see how it can be evaluated as a brilliant move based on something that didn't happen and wasn't certain.
If he takes the bishop you have an absolute pin on the queen if you play rook e1 otherwise you just win a pawn
But they didn't need to take the bishop and could have moved the queen preventing the absolute pin. It's odd how it's considered a brilliant move despite the absolute pin not being guaranteed.