Brilliants moves (!!) and others (Good, Book, Dubious) for game analysis

1. For those that are thinking that "there is no such algorithm", they don't seem to understand that there is and for this exist current notation to mark them. If a human can decide and agree that some certainly "Good", "Brilliant", or "Book" moves too a computer can definetely do this too.

It is just a matter of defining some conditions. And it is sincerely not rocket science, there is a million things much more complicated that defining good moves in a game.

2. You are also focusing in the Brilliant ones. Which is not the point of the whole post. The "Good and "Book" ones are also important from a pedagogic standpoint.

3. It is again from a pedagogic view. A traffic light shows red when you have to stop, but it also shows in green when you are good to go.

Before posting counter standpoints of my original post please take the time to say something more argumented.

Saying:

• "that is chess.comish" - That is not true, because game analysis considers marking good and brilliant moves
• "chess.com does it but it is bad" - It is not the only site thata does it, and their system is robust, exceptional "arguable" brilliant moves can happen, but they don't make the majority to discard the whole system
• "it is impossible" - Without saying any technical incovenience that would show this evidently this is completely void
• "I don't understand why people want this" - Without empathy or a second iteration thought

These bring absolutely nothing to the table.

All of those counter points remind me the old school 2.79 Blender stuborns that didn't want Blender to change without any proper reason. Blender fortunately changed and it is doing fantastically.

@tpr said ^

"there is no simple algorithm for defining what is brilliant"

• There is: a move that:

1. wins,
2. is the only move that wins,
3. involves a sacrifice, and
4. is a quiet move, no check (+) or capture (x).
   It is easy to code.

"there is no generally agreed definitio what is blunder"

• A blunder (??) is a move that turns a winning position into a losing position.
  A mistake (?) is a move that turn...

Thanks for supporting the idea. And I agree with you!
It is just a series of conditionals which are very easy to code in this case.

Please code it. What we don't want is to throw around "brilliant" and end up tagging things like this

https://www.reddit.com/r/Chesscom/comments/1wfc07h/can_someone_explain_why_its_a_brilliant_move/

So far, every implementation I have seen or tested, just ends up giving non-brilliant things the brilliant tag.
In fact, the #2 post here stated the issue well. We need a working example before it can be added, there is no principle objections to the feature. It's more about the quality it offers.

@TBest said ^

Please code it. What we don't want is to throw around "brilliant" and end up tagging things like this

image.png (https://image.lichess1.org/display?fmt=png&h=0&op=resize&path=C-n24OMURtrB.png&w=864&sig=6065d76b39422f788203ccd821d35ea6babbab92)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Chesscom/comments/1wfc07h/can_someone_explain_why_its_a_brilliant_move/

So far, every implementation I have seen or tested, j...

1. Exceptions don't make the rule. A robust algorithm that understand most of the time the moves is ok.
2. The algorithm quality to define them can be polished over time. It will of course not be great in the v1.0. The same as explained with color profiles. And the same it happened with chess bots. They started being "dumb", until they were undefeatable by the human.
3. There is absolutely no shame at all in that image. AAA games have bugs. The system learns from mistakes. Having a "buged" result is a common thing in programming.

I think you got the answer, if you want it you have to code it yourself. And if you can't code you have to hire someone who can. Then you publish it to github and you let devs review it.

@Deadban said ^

I think you got the answer, if you want it you have to code it yourself. And if you can't code you have to hire someone who can. Then you publish it to github and you let devs review it.

That is not how open source projects work. Please educate yourself.

You can propose ideas (in this case from a design standpoint mainly) an other contributors can participate.

You don't have to be the full operator.

@Axaet said ^

That is not how open source projects work. Please educate yourself.

You can propose ideas to anything, that's not a privilege for open source projects only, that's why there's a feedback forum in most games. If you wanted to be more professional you'd open this thread directly on github, you'd have a slightly higher probability it would be considered.

You are the #382094200292 person to have proposed this feature and the response from the Lichess team has always been the same. The only difference I acknowledge is that you have brought the different coloring system on the table, but that's really not what devs want. That's aesthetic while they want a solution to the quality problems.

@Deadban said ^

That is not how open source projects work. Please educate yourself.

You can propose ideas to anything, that's not a privilege for open source projects only, that's why there's a feedback forum in most games. If you wanted to be more professional you'd open this thread directly on github, you'd have a slightly higher probability it would be consider...

You are not being polite, nor bringing anything to the table.

Please act accordingly, I'm posting it also in github too. Posting in this forum is also part of the activity to make users be aware of a feature that could benefit many others and foster them to participate.

I don't understand the angry tone when all I'm doing is proposing a good idea.

Proposing a structure of how the move types should be shown is something that as a designer can contribute. Which is way more than just complaining without proper manners as you are doing.

@Axaet said ^

Posting in this forum is also part of the activity to make users be aware of a feature that could benefit many others and foster them to participate.

Have you missed the part where you are the #382094200292 person to have proposed this feature in the forum? I think people are well aware of what this feature would entitle.

I don't understand the angry tone when all I'm doing is proposing a good idea

I'm not angry, I'm just overly tired of reading this for yet another time.

Proposing a structure of how the move types should be shown is something that as a designer can contribute.

Perfect, thank you for your suggestion. Now you should stop at this and come across as "hey this is a new way of displaying from an aesthetic point of view how the feature should present to the users in case you ever decide to implement the feature. If you do, contact me and we can collaborate."

Instead this is how you come across:
" hey now that you have this new and original way of displaying from an aesthetic point of view how the feature should present to the users you should absolutely go to work and code the algorithm that would actually make the feature. I don't have any real suggestions in that regard but I trust that this would be a great feature so you should definitely do it."

And I've also been nice since you also said:

And it is sincerely not rocket science, there is a million things much more complicated that defining good moves in a game.

Which sounds quite arrogant.

@Deadban said ^

Posting in this forum is also part of the activity to make users be aware of a feature that could benefit many others and foster them to participate.

Have you missed the part where you are the #382094200292 person to have proposed this feature in the forum? I think people are well aware of what this feature would entitle.

I don't understand the...

Your answer is inmature and doesn't add any valueable bit to the proposed idea.

#382094200292

This is not true. There is only a single active topic on github talking about this. You are exaggerating. More over this forum doesn't even have a feature to properly find previously discussed topics.

"I'm not angry, I'm just overly tired of reading this for yet another time."

That doesn't justify being unpolite

"...I don't have any real suggestions in that regard..."

You certainly haven't even read the original post. I quoted some articles that may be helpful for a programmer to do it. Open source projects are not built only by programmers. You are diminishing the effort of the community, and you again are bringin nothing to help on creating the feature. You clearly have no idea how an open source project works.

• Saying that defining a move type in a game is not rocket science is absolutely true.... May it may be hard? Yes, but it is not rocket science for sure. The very worst thing to happen is someone ashamed that a Brilliant is not a brilliant.... which is at max extremely childish and trivial.