Answers.Body: <p>Stockfish has no concept of what a &quot;brilliant move&quot; actually is. It just gets a position as an input and returns an evaluation number for each of the possible continuations.</p>
  <p>All the labels on specific moves are provided by chess.com based on the engine's evaluation and a few other factors. According to chess.com themselves, &quot;brilliant&quot; moves are best moves in a given position that involve some sort of sacrifice. Since this move doesn't, I don't think the move would be classified as brilliant. But stronger players will have more restrictive criteria to be assigned &quot;brilliant moves&quot;, so your rating will have an impact on whether your move will be considered brilliant or not.</p>
  <p>I wouldn't bother either way. &quot;Brilliant moves&quot; as computers use the term are not a real concept in chess analysis, but rather a marketing strategy used by chess sites to make you want to buy their analysis services. There's also the human definition of &quot;brilliant&quot; (!!) moves used by chess authors that goes something like &quot;a great move that is hard to spot&quot;. This of course has the downside of being subjective and not too useful when working with an engine.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-01-11T16:06:39.537Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-01-11T19:53:36.010Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2023-01-11T19:53:36.010Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Body: <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/VrFMS.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/VrFMS.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
  Is a quadruple fork (the image above) considered a brilliant move according to Stockfish?</p>
  <p>I was just curious to know if Stockfish considers this a brilliant move, but at the same time, I'm not sure how to check this, so it would be great if someone could tell me.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-01-11T18:08:50.907Z
Comments.Text: What is the definition of a "_brilliant move_"?  Humans set this definition. Stockfish is just code.  Code knows nothing except what we program.  This would be a parameter setting, nothing more from SF's perspective.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SecretAgentMan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-01-11T18:12:37.757Z
Comments.Text: A "quad fork" isn't necessarily a brilliant move in and of itself. Counterexample to your suggestion:  1. Qh8# is the better move in [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/r3k3/6R1/qppprp2/3N4/8/8/PPP5/1K5Q_w_-_-_0_1?color=white), not a quad fork. (acknowledge here the quad fork still works, but you get the idea)
Comments.UserDisplayName: SecretAgentMan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-01-12T01:28:05.033Z
Comments.Text: No matter how many pieces are forked, you can only take one of them, so I'm not sure how a quad fork is better in any real way.
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Gordon
Tags: <stockfish><fork>
Title: Would Quadruple forking be considered a brilliant move according to Stockfish?
ThreadText: # Would Quadruple forking be considered a brilliant move according to Stockfish?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2023-01-11)
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/VrFMS.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/VrFMS.jpg)
  Is a quadruple fork (the image above) considered a brilliant move according to Stockfish?
  
  I was just curious to know if Stockfish considers this a brilliant move, but at the same time, I'm not sure how to check this, so it would be great if someone could tell me.
  
  **Tags:** stockfish, fork
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: What is the definition of a "_brilliant move_"?  Humans set this definition. Stockfish is just code.  Code knows nothing except what we program.  This would be a parameter setting, nothing more from SF's perspective.  
  > **username_1**: A "quad fork" isn't necessarily a brilliant move in and of itself. Counterexample to your suggestion:  1. Qh8# is the better move in [this position](https://lichess.org/analysis/r3k3/6R1/qppprp2/3N4/8/8/PPP5/1K5Q_w_-_-_0_1?color=white), not a quad fork. (acknowledge here the quad fork still works, but you get the idea)  
  > **username_2**: No matter how many pieces are forked, you can only take one of them, so I'm not sure how a quad fork is better in any real way.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2023-01-11. Score: 13 | Accepted answer
  
  Stockfish has no concept of what a "brilliant move" actually is. It just gets a position as an input and returns an evaluation number for each of the possible continuations.
  
  All the labels on specific moves are provided by chess.com based on the engine's evaluation and a few other factors. According to chess.com themselves, "brilliant" moves are best moves in a given position that involve some sort of sacrifice. Since this move doesn't, I don't think the move would be classified as brilliant. But stronger players will have more restrictive criteria to be assigned "brilliant moves", so your rating will have an impact on whether your move will be considered brilliant or not.
  
  I wouldn't bother either way. "Brilliant moves" as computers use the term are not a real concept in chess analysis, but rather a marketing strategy used by chess sites to make you want to buy their analysis services. There's also the human definition of "brilliant" (!!) moves used by chess authors that goes something like "a great move that is hard to spot". This of course has the downside of being subjective and not too useful when working with an engine.
  
  
  ---
  
  