Answers.Body: <p>It's really hard to tell what a brilliancy is. For example, you might try to say that a brilliancy is a move that's much better than any other move on the board.  Well, if you offer me a queen exchange and I play queen takes queen, you taking back my queen is probably a much better move than any alternative, but it's definitely not a brilliancy. So maybe a brilliancy is a <em>non-obvious</em> move that's much better than any alternative. OK, but what's non-obvious? Maybe you could do something based on the depth you have to go in the search tree to prove that the move is good, but that probably still isn't right because a long sequence of exchanges is usually obvious but, by construction, goes deep into the tree. Or, suppose you trap my queen: by the proof depth metric, that would be a brilliancy if I can insert a long sequence of pointless checks before you take my queen, and a normal move if I can't.</p>
  
  <p>In contrast, bad moves are easy to detect: if a move is suboptimal, you just compare its score against the score of the best move and use a more negative word for bigger differences.</p>
  
  <p>Fundamentally, there's only one best move in any situation. As far as the computer is concerned, you either played it or you didn't.  Bad moves are bad moves, but brilliancies are good moves that most players wouldn't have seen, and that's as much a statement about "most players" as it is about "good moves".</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T18:42:37.863Z
Answers.Text: Upvoted for that last sentence. Sums up the situation quite nicely.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:54:15.910Z
Answers.Text: what about sacrifices? a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:54:50.127Z
Answers.Text: in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T18:34:27.957Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-05-04T18:34:27.957Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Richerby
Answers.Body: <p>Here's why computer analysis (on any platform) can not find brilliant moves.</p>
  
  <h2>They don't exist.</h2>
  
  <p>Now, I recognize that this seems <em>very</em> counter-intuitive, but bear with me. This has to do with the difference between how <em>we</em> (intuitively) view a chess game and how a <em>computer</em> (correctly) views a chess game.</p>
  
  <p>When we look at a chess position, we subconsciously view the position on the board as having a certain value, and we look to improve that value.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Chess computers look at this in a <em>completely</em> different way.</strong></p>
  
  <p>The value that they assess the position is based on perfect play from the position forward - the only way to deviate from the perfect play is to make an error of some sort.</p>
  
  <p>Example: You're losing a game by a bit, and then you find a beautiful, non-obvious tactic that nets your opponent's queen. In our human minds, we just took the game from losing to winning with our brilliancy. According to the computer, <strong>the position was already winning</strong> for you, because the computer saw the brilliancy. Any move other than the brilliancy is likely a mistake of some sort.</p>
  
  <h2>TL;DR</h2>
  
  <p>Non-obvious "brilliant" moves do not change the value of the position - they merely fulfill its potential.</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>Now, of course there are moves that we consider "excellent" or "brilliant" for one reason or another (requires a sacrifice, isn't immediately obvious, requires deep calculation, etc.). Don't get me wrong - it feels <em>very</em> rewarding to find one of these moves, and some moves are undeniably "!!" moves for human players. However, any analysis (on the part of a spectator  <em>or</em> a player) that does <em>not</em> take into account the "!!" move is incorrect in the first place, and the "!!" move shows that.</p>
  
  <p>Also, creating an objective definition of "brilliancy" is next to impossible - sometimes we "know" a move is brilliant, but we can't consistently explain why.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T16:37:56.243Z
Answers.Text: I think I disagree with the statement that brilliancies don't exist. By that reasoning, there are no brilliant scientists or inventors or anything else either, since the things they discover were always there for anyone to learn.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T16:38:37.750Z
Answers.Text: @DM I meant "brilliancy" as a term for chess moves only. Edited.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T16:42:38.430Z
Answers.Text: I realize you meant it that way. But I'm saying that your logic could be extended, with that result.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T16:47:49.270Z
Answers.Text: @DM ah, I see what you mean. I don't think that my logic can be extended quite so easily - a chess game is very carefully defined, with exactly one goal in mind for each side. Life is much more complicated - and still, defining "brilliancy" _is_ going to be difficult - but I think it's a lot different from a chess move. Essentially, chess is very weakly solved by computers. Life isn't. Also, (so far) computers beat humans at chess, but not scientific discoveries.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-05-03T04:51:20.590Z
Answers.Text: I think that we could aproximate brillliancy with surprise. It is known that Leela Chess has been capable to "discover" other ways to outperform its oponent (Stockfish). And I believe that in engine tournaments has happened that an engine asumes its winning only to be discovered several moves later, that is the other engine that had the upper hand. Therefore, the surprise element shall be evaluated using two different engines and comparing its evaluation after five or more moves, and if an important change in position's envaluation magnitud is discovered, consider it candidate for brilliancy.
Answers.UserDisplayName: djnavas
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:50:34.813Z
Answers.Text: in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:53:35.873Z
Answers.Text: re sacrifice: i could define this for a computer as a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T15:07:35.630Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-05-04T16:48:07.290Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-05-04T16:48:07.290Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Answers.Body: <h1>You are being compared to perfection</h1>
  <p>Your every move is being evaluated by a chess engine with super-human playing-strength. The default is to compare your performance to its own super-human performance. Since the engine always makes the move it itself has identified as the highest-valued, perforce it always makes the best move by definition. Hence you can only stray from this path of &quot;perfection&quot;.</p>
  <h1>Allowing brilliance means comparing to non-perfection</h1>
  <p>To leave room for brilliant moves, or better than expected performance, it is necessary that your performance be compared to something that is not &quot;perfect&quot; by definition, for example the performance of a weaker engine. Theoretically, given the availability of a whole range of engines with different known ratings, each one of your moves could be categorized into a specific rating bucket.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-20T14:13:40.147Z
Answers.Text: This duplicates [a preexisting answer](/a/24379/204).
Answers.UserDisplayName: msh210
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:54:32.263Z
Answers.Text: what about sacrifices? a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:54:52.857Z
Answers.Text: in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-05T15:14:45.510Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-01-19T16:20:58.490Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-01-19T16:20:58.490Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: hkBst
Answers.Body: <p>Almost all (if not all) of your brilliancies were immediately seen by the engine. If the engine always points out your moves that it agrees with, then standard opening moves would be considered brilliancies. So now the problem arises of figuring out moves that are difficult or pleasing for humans specifically, and this is beyond the normal scope of an engine's purpose.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:55:03.203Z
Answers.Text: in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:55:52.440Z
Answers.Text: what about sacrifices? a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable
Answers.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-26T13:11:15.063Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-04-26T13:11:15.063Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Body: <p>A computer analysis of a game in Lichess lists your "inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders".  An example is below:</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/SRgy8.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/SRgy8.png" alt="LiChess highlighting my &quot;inaccuracies&quot;, &quot;mistakes&quot;, and &quot;blunders&quot;"></a></p>
  
  <p>What I don't understand is why Lichess doesn't point out my good moves.  It seems there is some inherent problem identifying strong moves, which is not present when pointing out poor moves.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Question</strong>: Why does Lichess only tell me my "inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders", and not e.g. my "brilliancies"?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-01-11T16:12:33.567Z
Comments.Text: There are no brilliant moves.  Just good, often unexpected,to humans,  moves.  If you get a game with zero centipawn loss then add your own exclamation marks.  Or if you prefer then add them to every move that is not a mistake blunder or inaccuracy and is a zero centipawn move.
Comments.UserDisplayName: yobamamama
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T14:56:38.107Z
Comments.Text: Define "brilliancy"? In any case, this is a purely feature related question about lichess, it makes more sense to ask it on the forum space of the said website: https://lichess.org/forum
Comments.UserDisplayName: user929304
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T15:15:23.317Z
Comments.Text: @user929304 I disagree; this question is _not_ a lichess-specific question. I've proposed an edit to the question to address this, but I forgot that I can't yet edit on this site (12 rep away XD)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T15:37:40.303Z
Comments.Text: See this question: [Automated annotation of good moves](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/18313/automated-annotation-of-good-moves). According to one of the answers, chesstempo has actually tried to make progress in annotating good moves, but it's not an exact science...
Comments.UserDisplayName: itub
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-04T15:39:01.490Z
Comments.Text: As @user929304 implies "brilliancy" is meaningless in the algorithmic world. For humans a brilliant move is one which is hard to find because we can't calculate all the possibilities but calculating all the possibilities is exactly what computers do.(within their move horizon). "Inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders" are merely human terms which the programmer assigns to moves which reduce the evaluation by certain amounts. "Brilliancies" leave the evaluation unchanged as do normal moves in calm positions.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-05T17:33:47.347Z
Comments.Text: It's impossible to answer that question without a definition of "brilliancy". Maybe a move that the engine discarded when analyzing the position, but liked after it has been played? I guess such moves are very, very rare.
Comments.UserDisplayName: fuxia
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-05T17:34:17.683Z
Comments.Text: Well, chess.com has good move and excellent move
Comments.UserDisplayName: Marvin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-06T22:52:31.907Z
Comments.Text: @Marvin chess.com has those 3 and also a "brilliant" move, so it incorporates what's being asked.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Isac
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-07T01:13:55.603Z
Comments.Text: @Isac what I meant when I said that was that all the answers talk about how it is nearly impossibly to say something is a brilliant move, but it seemed chess.com was perfectly capable
Comments.UserDisplayName: Marvin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-07T09:49:10.793Z
Comments.Text: @Marvin i know lol, i'm agreeing with you and also saying that chess.com does even have more, with a "brilliant" move. Which implies (as you said) that it is possible, even if it isn't that easy to implement. To be fair it is a somewhat recent feature in chess.com and their analysis tool has improved quite a lot recently
Comments.UserDisplayName: Isac
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-05-09T06:50:08.463Z
Comments.Text: In addition to all that's been said,  would suggest you to completely ignore that "analysis"
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-21T10:20:29.330Z
Comments.Text: Just don't use engines to evaluate your games (see Brandon G's answer)
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-27T15:57:42.153Z
Comments.Text: Such a good question and such a funny one.
Comments.UserDisplayName: rolando2
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-01-16T10:13:28.200Z
Comments.Text: in general, why do people say only the bad things and not the good things? related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/160945/colleagues-dont-congratulate-me-or-cheer-me-on-when-i-do-good-work and https://www.viacharacter.org/character-strengths/gratitude
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:51:42.807Z
Comments.Text: OP and  @Marvin in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:51:58.627Z
Comments.Text: OP and  @Isac in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-01-18T13:52:40.127Z
Comments.Text: @yobamamama what about sacrifices? a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Tags: <engines><software><lichess>
Title: Why does Lichess only tell me my "inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders", and not e.g. my "brilliancies"?
ThreadText: # Why does Lichess only tell me my "inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders", and not e.g. my "brilliancies"?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-04)
  
  A computer analysis of a game in Lichess lists your "inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders". An example is below:
  
  [![LiChess highlighting my ](https://i.sstatic.net/SRgy8.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/SRgy8.png)
  
  What I don't understand is why Lichess doesn't point out my good moves. It seems there is some inherent problem identifying strong moves, which is not present when pointing out poor moves.
  
  **Question**: Why does Lichess only tell me my "inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders", and not e.g. my "brilliancies"?
  
  **Tags:** engines, software, lichess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Define "brilliancy"? In any case, this is a purely feature related question about lichess, it makes more sense to ask it on the forum space of the said website: https://lichess.org/forum  
  > **username_3**: @username_2 I disagree; this question is _not_ a lichess-specific question. I've proposed an edit to the question to address this, but I forgot that I can't yet edit on this site (12 rep away XD)  
  > **username_4**: See this question: [Automated annotation of good moves](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/18313/automated-annotation-of-good-moves). According to one of the answers, chesstempo has actually tried to make progress in annotating good moves, but it's not an exact science...  
  > **username_5**: As @username_2 implies "brilliancy" is meaningless in the algorithmic world. For humans a brilliant move is one which is hard to find because we can't calculate all the possibilities but calculating all the possibilities is exactly what computers do.(within their move horizon). "Inaccuracies", "mistakes", and "blunders" are merely human terms which the programmer assigns to moves which reduce the evaluation by certain amounts. "Brilliancies" leave the evaluation unchanged as do normal moves in calm positions.  
  > **username_6**: It's impossible to answer that question without a definition of "brilliancy". Maybe a move that the engine discarded when analyzing the position, but liked after it has been played? I guess such moves are very, very rare.  
  > **username_7**: Well, chess.com has good move and excellent move  
  > **username_8**: @username_7 chess.com has those 3 and also a "brilliant" move, so it incorporates what's being asked.  
  > **username_7**: @username_8 what I meant when I said that was that all the answers talk about how it is nearly impossibly to say something is a brilliant move, but it seemed chess.com was perfectly capable  
  > **username_8**: @username_7 i know lol, i'm agreeing with you and also saying that chess.com does even have more, with a "brilliant" move. Which implies (as you said) that it is possible, even if it isn't that easy to implement. To be fair it is a somewhat recent feature in chess.com and their analysis tool has improved quite a lot recently  
  > **username_9**: In addition to all that's been said,  would suggest you to completely ignore that "analysis"  
  > **username_1**: There are no brilliant moves.  Just good, often unexpected,to humans,  moves.  If you get a game with zero centipawn loss then add your own exclamation marks.  Or if you prefer then add them to every move that is not a mistake blunder or inaccuracy and is a zero centipawn move.  
  > **username_9**: Just don't use engines to evaluate your games (see Brandon G's answer)  
  > **username_10**: Such a good question and such a funny one.  
  > **username_11**: in general, why do people say only the bad things and not the good things? related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/160945/colleagues-dont-congratulate-me-or-cheer-me-on-when-i-do-good-work and https://www.viacharacter.org/character-strengths/gratitude  
  > **username_11**: OP and  @username_7 in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?  
  > **username_11**: OP and  @username_8 in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?  
  > **username_11**: @username_1 what about sacrifices? a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2019-05-04. Score: 27
  
  It's really hard to tell what a brilliancy is. For example, you might try to say that a brilliancy is a move that's much better than any other move on the board. Well, if you offer me a queen exchange and I play queen takes queen, you taking back my queen is probably a much better move than any alternative, but it's definitely not a brilliancy. So maybe a brilliancy is a *non-obvious* move that's much better than any alternative. OK, but what's non-obvious? Maybe you could do something based on the depth you have to go in the search tree to prove that the move is good, but that probably still isn't right because a long sequence of exchanges is usually obvious but, by construction, goes deep into the tree. Or, suppose you trap my queen: by the proof depth metric, that would be a brilliancy if I can insert a long sequence of pointless checks before you take my queen, and a normal move if I can't.
  
  In contrast, bad moves are easy to detect: if a move is suboptimal, you just compare its score against the score of the best move and use a more negative word for bigger differences.
  
  Fundamentally, there's only one best move in any situation. As far as the computer is concerned, you either played it or you didn't. Bad moves are bad moves, but brilliancies are good moves that most players wouldn't have seen, and that's as much a statement about "most players" as it is about "good moves".
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: Upvoted for that last sentence. Sums up the situation quite nicely.  
  > **username_11**: what about sacrifices? a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable  
  > **username_11**: in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-05-04. Score: 24
  
  Here's why computer analysis (on any platform) can not find brilliant moves.
  
  ## They don't exist.
  
  Now, I recognize that this seems *very* counter-intuitive, but bear with me. This has to do with the difference between how *we* (intuitively) view a chess game and how a *computer* (correctly) views a chess game.
  
  When we look at a chess position, we subconsciously view the position on the board as having a certain value, and we look to improve that value.
  
  **Chess computers look at this in a *completely* different way.**
  
  The value that they assess the position is based on perfect play from the position forward - the only way to deviate from the perfect play is to make an error of some sort.
  
  Example: You're losing a game by a bit, and then you find a beautiful, non-obvious tactic that nets your opponent's queen. In our human minds, we just took the game from losing to winning with our brilliancy. According to the computer, **the position was already winning** for you, because the computer saw the brilliancy. Any move other than the brilliancy is likely a mistake of some sort.
  
  ## TL;DR
  
  Non-obvious "brilliant" moves do not change the value of the position - they merely fulfill its potential.
  
  ---
  
  Now, of course there are moves that we consider "excellent" or "brilliant" for one reason or another (requires a sacrifice, isn't immediately obvious, requires deep calculation, etc.). Don't get me wrong - it feels *very* rewarding to find one of these moves, and some moves are undeniably "!!" moves for human players. However, any analysis (on the part of a spectator *or* a player) that does *not* take into account the "!!" move is incorrect in the first place, and the "!!" move shows that.
  
  Also, creating an objective definition of "brilliancy" is next to impossible - sometimes we "know" a move is brilliant, but we can't consistently explain why.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_13**: I think I disagree with the statement that brilliancies don't exist. By that reasoning, there are no brilliant scientists or inventors or anything else either, since the things they discover were always there for anyone to learn.  
  > **username_3**: @DM I meant "brilliancy" as a term for chess moves only. Edited.  
  > **username_13**: I realize you meant it that way. But I'm saying that your logic could be extended, with that result.  
  > **username_3**: @DM ah, I see what you mean. I don't think that my logic can be extended quite so easily - a chess game is very carefully defined, with exactly one goal in mind for each side. Life is much more complicated - and still, defining "brilliancy" _is_ going to be difficult - but I think it's a lot different from a chess move. Essentially, chess is very weakly solved by computers. Life isn't. Also, (so far) computers beat humans at chess, but not scientific discoveries.  
  > **username_14**: I think that we could aproximate brillliancy with surprise. It is known that Leela Chess has been capable to "discover" other ways to outperform its oponent (Stockfish). And I believe that in engine tournaments has happened that an engine asumes its winning only to be discovered several moves later, that is the other engine that had the upper hand. Therefore, the surprise element shall be evaluated using two different engines and comparing its evaluation after five or more moves, and if an important change in position's envaluation magnitud is discovered, consider it candidate for brilliancy.  
  > **username_11**: in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?  
  > **username_11**: re sacrifice: i could define this for a computer as a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_15 on 2019-05-05. Score: 14
  
  # You are being compared to perfection
  
  Your every move is being evaluated by a chess engine with super-human playing-strength. The default is to compare your performance to its own super-human performance. Since the engine always makes the move it itself has identified as the highest-valued, perforce it always makes the best move by definition. Hence you can only stray from this path of "perfection".
  
  # Allowing brilliance means comparing to non-perfection
  
  To leave room for brilliant moves, or better than expected performance, it is necessary that your performance be compared to something that is not "perfect" by definition, for example the performance of a weaker engine. Theoretically, given the availability of a whole range of engines with different known ratings, each one of your moves could be categorized into a specific rating bucket.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_16**: This duplicates [a preexisting answer](/a/24379/204).  
  > **username_11**: what about sacrifices? a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable  
  > **username_11**: in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_17 on 2020-04-26. Score: 1
  
  Almost all (if not all) of your brilliancies were immediately seen by the engine. If the engine always points out your moves that it agrees with, then standard opening moves would be considered brilliancies. So now the problem arises of figuring out moves that are difficult or pleasing for humans specifically, and this is beyond the normal scope of an engine's purpose.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_11**: in chess.com there is 'Critical Move!' described as 'You found the only good move!' Perhaps this counts?  
  > **username_11**: what about sacrifices? a move you make where you end up down in material if sacrifice accepted but your position is overall winning. i think this is quantifiable  
  
  ---
  
  