Why ARE there brilliant moves in chess?

"Brilliant is an aesthetic notion. Problem chess is about aesthetics"

And aestheticity is objective.

Also that's kinda like saying, an apple is a fruit, and an orange is a fruit, therefore, an apple is an orange.

@IamNOTamod said ^

"Brilliant is an aesthetic notion. Problem chess is about aesthetics"

And aestheticity is objective.

Also that's kinda like saying, an apple is a fruit, and an orange is a fruit, therefore, an apple is an orange.

Agreed

"the move still meets all other criteria"

• But not the 4th criterium.
  Would you consider the Greek Gift Sacrifice Bxh7+ as brilliant? I do not.
  Botvinnik found the brilliant Ba3. Few would have found it. It there were a pawn on a3, then many more would think of Bxa3. Look at captures and checks first.

Brilliant moves sometime make players want to show off.

Guys this is madness dude. Chillll

@CuberJ

No, this is normal for a discussion involving [@]tpr. And such discussions are, in my opinion, actually good and productive!

Oops. Upon rereading post #41, I realised I wrote "objective". I meant "subjective", because aestheticity has no set definition. How silly of me!

@tpr said in #12:

Not brilliant to me. ...

Did someone decide that tpr has the deciding vote?

@tpr said in #15:

... For a real brilliant move it is a requirement. ...

The chess world turns to tpr for requirement specifications?

@tpr said in #21:

... That is also the convention in problem chess: ...

I have not heard of a general chess decision to adopt problem chess conventions.

"adopt problem chess conventions"

• That is not the point.
  What is brilliant? means what is aesthetic / beautiful?
  Problem chess is about aesthetics.
  They award prizes to the most aesthetic problem composed.
  They reached unanimity that the key move must be a quiet move, no check or capture.
  So to judge aesthetics of moves we should listen to what the specialists in the field of chess aesthetics have unanimously agreed on.

Apart from that, a brilliant move requires some element of surprise.
Beginners are taught to look at captures and checks first.
So those captures and checks are more obvious than a quiet move.
Ba3 in Botvinnik-Capablanca is clearly a brilliant move as it satisfies all 4 criteria.
If there were a pawn, knight, bishop, rook, or queen at a3, then Bxa3 would realize the exact same idea, but with a capture.
That makes it more obvious, less surprising.
Botvinnik found Ba3, but many would not. Even Capablanca did not see it coming.
If there were a pawn at a3, then both would calculate Bxa3 and lesser masters would have found it too.

@tpr said in #42:

... What is brilliant? means what is aesthetic / beautiful?
Problem chess is about aesthetics. ...
So to judge aesthetics of moves we should listen to what the specialists in the field of chess aesthetics ...

Did someone decide that tpr is the one to decree what the chess world "should" do?
Is it possible does not consider anyone as the "aesthetics" authotity, and that "problem chess" aesthetics are not necessarily for everyone?

@tpr said in #42:

... Apart from that, a brilliant move requires ...

The chess problem world turns to tpr for requirement specifications?