Brilliant Move

Well, according to this here, thibault first commented on this 21 mins ago, as of now that I am writing this comment. That was the first comment Thibault made here. After that, there is another one, but it isn't here. This just shows that thibault commented and then deleted what he wanted to say.



After thibault posted (and deleted) his comment, I commented and then you, @common-Buzzard , commented, according to the timeline.

What move(s) can be considered brilliant?
To the best of my understanding, different people would answer differently, depending on playing strength, but also on playing style, and more criteria.

Also, i recall the enjoyment, i had, when i saw bloody sacrifical attacks, while i was learning chess. I guess, that is because assessment + calculation were easier to comprehend. But today i hear people complaining about the so called "boring games" i am watching. But the truth is: i watch them just for the same pleasure and enjoyment, as today, many manouvres are no longer obscure, but i can understand (and sometimes even predict) the moves. and still, i am not even a strong player. certainly, there are even more fine brilliancies still above my pay grade.

That is why whatever the approach of chess.com migh have been, its usefulness is bound to be limited to a certain group of players. ( => not worth the effort of coding such a thing) IMHO

A brilliant move is a move with the sign !!

@thibault said in #2:
> What is a brilliant move?

Could a "brilliant move" be defined as an Only move (All other moves are "significantly" less in engine evaluation) that is not a recapture (Recaptures tend to give an Only move position for example after e4 Nf6 d3 Nxf6 , the move dxe4 is an only move but there is nothing brilliant about it)

Also all the moves from the Lichess puzzles can be considered as "Brilliant move" which they follow a specific definition.

Inaccuracies, Mistakes, and Blunders are easier to define: A difference in evaluation between the engine move and the game move. It's something like a difference of >.5 = Inaccuracy, >1 = Mistake, >3 = Blunder.

Brilliant moves are much harder to identify by the engine. What constitutes a brilliant move? Is it finding the only move that gives an advantage? In that case, is making a recapture in a slightly better position a brilliant move? Is it finding the first move in a sequence of only moves? In that case, is a pawn race where you promote before your opponent considered brilliant?

I think the idea of a "brilliant move" is more of a human concept, and not something we should leave up to computers to decide.

I'm sure Thibs knows what the word "Brilliant" means.

Unfortunately the word will need to be VERY precisely defined for anything using it to be implemented. You can't just say "a queen sacrifice" because we have the same problem, what is a queen sacrifice? It can't just be when the queen gets taken, then any queen exchange will qualify. Maybe "positions where the queen is taken and not recaptured for x plys and the evaluation is in favor of the side without the queen." Better, but this will include fairly un-brilliant moves that trade a queen for 2 rooks. I'm sure SOME reasonable definition can be found, but its not happening in a sentence or 2.

It's hard to evaluate chess.com's CAPS score or "brilliant moves" until I know what they refer to exactly. ACPL is far from perfect but I can tell you exactly where it comes from, which helps me know when it gives a shaky view of things.

I think that the term "brilliant move" is used for a move that the engine did not at first see. For example, in a position, the engine would play what it qualifies as "the best move" but sometimes, it misses a so-called "brilliant" move. Its depth is to complicated to see for stockfish.

This is a strange thingy - over there.

I think if lichess put it studies will be more interesting

Wow thibault deleted his own post, that’s something you don’t see everyday