what makes a move brilliant?

@shaunmarvel said in #49:

A brilliant move is what when the opponent player move one piece and we did better move than that
Am i correct or not
No, your opponent can do a blunder and you, a mistake. You did better BUT it’s not brilliant

I feel that majority of the time, If a piece is sacrificed, that could count as a brilliant move.

Also I notice that there is only brilliant moves here, but in chess.com there is both an excellent and brilliant.

A brilliant move is a move that makes opponent go whaaaaat?! and find another job

#52
"a piece is sacrificed" * It must also win, be unique, and be a quiet move.

#50
"if you ever played OTB chess seriously" * Yes, a lot.

"read (somewhat modern) books at all" * No, only classical books and I did not read them, but study them.

You are trolling.

A MOVE THAT TAKES UR OPPONENT INTO A DEEP DARK FOREST where 2+2=5 AND THE PATH TO COME OUT IS WIDE ENOUGH ONLY FOR ONE . THE BEST ANSWER AS FAR !

@tpr said in #3:

A true brilliant move satisfies 4 criteria
It is a move that wins: moves that lose or draw are not brilliant.
It is the only move that wins: when several moves win, then none is brilliant.
It is a quiet move, no check or capture: those are too obvious.
It involves a sacrifice: sacrifices are aesthetically pleasing.
@kindaspongey said in #36:
There is a whole book of examples of brilliancy prize winners:
Great Brilliancy Prize Games Of The Chess Masters by Fred Reinfeld
"... 50 brilliancy prize games from nearly 70 years of chess competition. ..." ...
@tpr said in #37:
... How many of the 50 fit the 4 criteria?
@nadjarostowa said in #38:
I guess the book is about "brilliant games" - which seems a different topic than "brilliant moves". Although related, the criteria might be different.
@tpr said in #39:
... What is a brilliant game? I suppose it contains at least one brilliant move.
@nadjarostowa said in #40:
... Well...
Obviously a brilliant move is not enough to make it a brilliant game - if you play silly moves in that game, nobody will say it's brilliant. Same goes for your opponent's moves: if they make silly mistakes, nobody cares for your greatness.
On the other hand, you can simply play "good moves" that people deem worthy, and the game may win a brilliancy prize. And it may also be founded on moves that the computer completely disapproves, like unsound sacrifices - but that provide huge value in practical play. Of course you might say those moves then qualify as brilliant and bad at the same time...
I am afraid, nothing of this will match your rigid Hübner framework. :-)
@tpr said in #42:
... Show one of the 50 brilliant games that contains no brilliant move according to the 4 criteria. ...
@nadjarostowa said in #50:
... No. I am not your servant. ...
I do not feel up to the task of going through all the games. Here is the first: [Site "Frankfurt am Main GER"] [Date "1887.07.25"] [White "Emmanuel Schiffers"] [Black "Max Harmonist"] [ECO "C54"] 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Bb4+ 7 Bd2 Bxd2+ 8 Nbxd2 d5 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Qb3 Nce7 11 O-O O-O 12 Rfe1 c6 13 a4 Qc7 14 Rac1 Nf4 15 Ng5 Neg6 16 Re8 Rxe8 17 Bxf7+ Kh8 18 Bxe8 Ne2+ 19 Kh1 Nxc1 20 Nf7+ Kg8 21 Nh6+ Kf8 22 Qg8+ Ke7 23 Bxg6 hxg6 24 Qxg7+ Kd8 25 Qf8+ Kd7 26 Ne4 Qd8 27 Qd6+ Ke8 28 Nf6+ 1-0
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1257938
"16 [Re8]!!" - Fred Reinfeld
https://books.google.com/books?id=6P6JzHrTRKwC&printsec=copyright#v=onepage&q&f=false
By the way, this discussion has already struck an iceberg (~2 hours ago) and begun sinking. As I write this, there are already 10 topics above it in the discussion list.

@tpr

those
"criteria"
are
dis
pu
ta
BLE !!

stop pretending they were written lore, traditional truths ...
where you got these from anyway? your pov? chatbot ai? rumours? made them up yourself?

they're interesting and contribute to the issue brilliant and need sorting out and counterspeech...
...but they are not common agreed upon by anyone principles

@kindaspongey that list goes a 24h rhythm , people come back next day.
your fav doesn't stay on top. that's not the point

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken said in #7:

... ' ± and +- ' are "ECO Code definitions" ??? ...
I did not write that.
ECO Codes have absolutely nothing to do with it

#58
"where you got these" * From the criteria in problem chess. Also they make sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_aesthetics

The key move must be a quiet move and there must be no duals.