It's really hard to program obviousness, or hard to see. There's also a balancing act in the process where if the definition is too strict brilliant moves will be so rare as to be non-existent.
Brilliant moves aren't all that brilliant
Sort:
Apr 12, 2023
0
#3
Martin_Stahl wrote:
It's really hard to program obviousness, or hard to see. There's also a balancing act in the process where if the definition is too strict brilliant moves will be so rare as to be non-existent.
True, I completely understand that it would never be perfect. Only a human (for now) would be able to say if a move is truly brilliant. I just think using the definition of "a good sacrifice" is a little lacking.
Personally, I'd rather have brilliant moves be more rare than not, so that when I do get one I can actually feel good about it because I know there's no way I made this many "brilliant" moves in a week.
moves that need to be precise, for example, when there is 1 good move/solution, need to be classified as brilliant in my opinion.
Aug 16, 2023
0
#6
StephanVelChess wrote:
moves that need to be precise, for example, when there is 1 good move/solution, need to be classified as brilliant in my opinion.
Only moves are often forced or obvious.
Oct 23, 2023
0
#7
I'm a very low rating player so I was very surprised on getting a brilliant move
After some analysis I think that another condition to get a brilliant could be a move that is not normal for things like the flow of the game or the rating of the players.
Meaning, a lot of people probably would see that and say "that's just an obvious move" but for players on my tier, maybe not...
Oct 23, 2023
0
#8
MancoAjedrez wrote:
I'm a very low rating player so I was very surprised on getting a brilliant move
After some analysis I think that another condition to get a brilliant could be a move that is not normal for things like the flow of the game or the rating of the players.
Meaning, a lot of people probably would see that and say "that's just an obvious move" but for players on my tier, maybe not...
Rating plays into the definition as well. Som moves will be marked as brilliant for some ratings where they won't be for a higher rated player on the same position.
Dec 16, 2023
0
#9
Brilliant moves are (most of the time) easier to get (for me). Like for example, I just got one today!
Jan 4, 2024
0
#10
i disagree w/ him bc i think it's a brilliant move bc it makes me happy and happy is good
Jan 22, 2024
0
#13
The reason for 6 moves to be brilliant should be if the king takes the rook, it is a draw, so the king basically cannot take the rook or else, stalemate!
I have only seen maybe 1 or 2 brilliant moves out of a few thousand games, but i dont analyze that often. It seems to me they could become a little more common. Id also like it to not be limited to ONLY be for sacrafices.
@8
"Rating plays into the definition as well. Som moves will be marked as brilliant for some ratings where they won't be for a higher rated player on the same position."
++ That makes no sense. Brilliant should be a property of a move, regardless of who played it.
@2
"It's really hard to program obviousness, or hard to see. "
Here are 4 easy to program criteria for a brilliant move:
- It is a move that wins. Losing or drawing moves are not brilliant.
- It is unique. When 2 moves win, then none is brilliant.
- It involves a sacrifice. Sacrifices are aesthetically pleasing.
- It is a quiet move: no check (+) or capture (x), as those are too obvious to be brilliant. That is the same convention as in problem chess checkmate in 2 or 3: the key move must be a quiet move.
An example of a true brilliant move that satisfies all 4 criteria is 30 Ba3
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031957
THEY ARE
edited moderator AndrewSmith
Spam
Feb 17, 2024
0
#18
Something that surprised me was I played a 1100 game review said played like a 900 and I played like a 1800 in the game and got a brilliant move do you think if is brilliant also I rated 1095 and feel overrated anything on that would help. Here the game
@diamondsalamander The fact that Elo is even being weighed in the assessment of a solid state board position (or series thereof) completely disqualifies any extrapolated performance figure they attach to it. Precedent performance can be factored only to produce a "chance winning percentage" from X position- not the value of an arrangement of chess pieces. Example: If I play Capablanca, my chance is a billion to one. After he suffers a fingerslip on move 12, I now lead Capablanca +2.50. My chances improve to a million to one LOL. Elo is fine when applied this way. It has no business in assessing his misplay as still superior. His -2.50 is what it is.
I've heard some chatter as of late on how the new classification for brilliant moves doesn't seem right and I want to jump into the conversation by providing some context and examples from my recent games and add my thoughts on why I think the new classification doesn't live up to the term "brilliant".
Background
It's pretty clear that the term "brilliant" in the context of a chess move 99% of the time means a really good, yet hard-to-see piece sacrifice. This has been the accepted definition in many chess books. One such definition as taken from the web:
In chess, a brilliant move is a move that is unexpected, ingenious, and has a significant impact on the game. It is a move that is beyond the typical or expected moves and requires deep thinking and strategic planning.
And another taken from chessjournal.com:
A brilliant move in chess is refers to a move that is exceedingly rare and difficult to find that gives the player more of an advantage in the position from what it was prior to being made.
A brilliant move in chess can take many forms, but they all share some common characteristics. Firstly, brilliant moves are unexpected. They are moves that your opponent did not see coming and therefore have trouble countering. Secondly, brilliant moves are creative. They are moves that break the usual patterns of play and force your opponent to think in new ways. Finally, brilliant moves are highly effective. They achieve a clear and decisive advantage for the player who makes them.
Chess.com has a much different, and simpler, definition for a brilliant move. To quote the Chess.com support page:
Brilliant (!!) moves and Great Moves are always the best or nearly best move in the position, but are also special in some way. We replaced the old Brilliant algorithm with a simpler definition: a Brilliant move is when you find a good piece sacrifice. There are some other conditions, like you should not be in a bad position after a Brilliant move and you should not be completely winning even if you had not found the move. Also, we are more generous in defining a piece sacrifice for newer players, compared with those who are higher rated.
While the Chess.com definition is a fair application of the term "brilliant move", I feel that many moves classified as "brilliant" on Chess.com don't live up to the expectation. I think chess.com is missing the "hard-to-see" and "unexpected" parts of the widely accepted "brilliant" term. Many of the brilliant moves I've seen here would only be considered great move (!) at most in any other context.
The following are some examples of why I think this definition is wrong.
Examples
In this first example, I was awarded a brilliant move for "sacrificing" a bishop. I wouldn't say this is a brilliant move by any means, but rather a simple back-rank mate threat. If white plays Rxb2?? I have a mate in 3. With that in mind, you can't say I'm sacrificing the bishop - I'm merely forcing white to respond to the mate threat before they can take my bishop. I don't think a brilliant move working out should be contingent on the opposing player blundering by taking the piece. Sure, this position is completely winning for black regardless of what white does, but for an ~1800 rated player, this type of move is not hard to find.
In the next example, I "sacrifice" a rook. Again, this is not a sacrifice. If I saved my rook, white wins a free bishop (-3 in material). If I save my bishop, I at least get the knight back in return (-2 in material). This isn't brilliant by any means, it's just basic math. I'd argue this is a "great" move (by chess.com definitions) because it was the only move that keeps an advantage, but even then, there are no tactics involved, no winning material, and no forced mate after this move.
This next move comes out of a well-known trap in the Fried Liver. White blundered by playing 7. Nxf7??. This is still a known opening line. Black takes the bishop, white played Nxh8 and black can take the c2-pawn and be completely winning (Yes, Qxc2 was the right move, followed by Qe1, Qxc1 Qxc1, and Ne2+ which I forgot was possible). Either way, black is clearly winning after taking the bishop. I'm not sacrificing the rook here, because I have Nxc2 (or Qxc2) and win my material right back. This again is a simple tactic and simple math.
If black played Rg8 last move to save the rook, white could respond with Nxe5 and win the rook anyways. So, if anything, I'm accepting that my rook is lost regardless, making this not that brilliant of a move.
In the next example, you see any other fairly basic back-rank tactic. Black just played Qxe1. If white takes the queen I have Rxe1, Qf1, Rxf1 and I win a bishop. If white plays Qf1 now, I win the bishop. I think this could be argued as brilliant in some context, but using the classic definition of "hard-to-see" this doesn't make the cut (that is, for higher-rated players). It was a very underwhelming brilliant move.
Changing it up a little here, this brilliant move wasn't even the best move in the position. I don't think any move that isn't the top move should be considered brilliant. But, going with the chess.com term of brilliant "nearly best move" this makes the cut. This is a fairly hard-to-see move and you can see the continuation below. White easily comes out on top. I will say though that white is completely winning regardless of finding Rxe6, so by definition, I don't think this should be considered brilliant even though it was a wonderful move nonetheless
In this example, I was given 7 brilliant moves in a row. In my opinion, this is just a basic tactic that everyone practices at some point, but rarely get a chance to actually play. While I do think this is one of the better brilliant moves I've shared in this post, this doesn't make the cut for me. What else am I going to do? I can't move any other piece but the rook, so it's pretty obvious that giving up the rook would mean a draw. Again, this is a game played between 2 1800s.
If anything, I can see how the first move here could be considered brilliant. It was after all my only hope at not losing a completely lost position. But after I played the first move, of course, I saw the whole continuation. I don't think I should be awarded 6 move brilliants. What's the limit? White didn't have to take the rook right there. I could have gotten way more brilliant moves.