Your bishop might not agree

but why the 49th move as white is not a brilliant move

Probably because the king has to escape from the check and then attacks the horse

53.Kf3 doesn’t change the evaluation at all so it can’t be marked by any mark let alone double exclam. Game review is just a sack of bugs.

Or maybe you don't know how chess.com defines "brilliant". It has nothing to do with "changing the evaluation". It's simply "a sacrifice that's good".

Bishop was en price for twelve moves, white has never any way to force black to take it, and all of the sudden just on move 53 it is a brilliant sacrifice? Think about it again.

The former moves were not sacrifices. White was attacking a piece too.

Of course, this logic makes no sense to a human. It doesn't matter if white is attacking the knight or not. White would answer Kxf6 with promoting, not with taking the knight.

But a simplistic computer program like chess.com's Game review script doesn't use human logic or any other kind of logic. It just does what it was programmed to do.

Yeah exactly you're moved was brillant because you did sac your bishop even if you were going to promote the next move. The previous one were'nt because you were attacking the knight

Magipi: Your explanation makes sense but in that case moves 56 and 63 should also be marked as brilliant. Anyway, if you are correct then algorithm used by game review is quite funny in the eyes of experienced player and reminds me of “horizon effect” in 1980’s.

https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8572705-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-etc

oh, so the bishop is hanging but im attacking the knight, and if he takes the bishop, i take the knight, right? but new question, why isnt 56th move the brilliant move

Ah beat me to it