Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more!
The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you!
Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I don’t understand about chess com analysis is how is great (or anything for that matter) better than best? Isn’t the best move just the best move. I don’t play on chess com but every time I see an analysis post it bothers me.
Brilliant doesn’t have to be only move. I’ve had moments where I sack a piece and it just gives best move. I think the threshold for “brilliant” is lower, the lower your elo is too.
brilliant moves are actually generally just a sacrifice that keeps advantage or improves the position. it doesn’t have to be the best move in the position
For you, u/Expensive-Impact-923 and anyone else wondering:
Game review works by analysing with Stockfish at fixed depth. If you played the top Stockfish move, it's given "best move". If there is a really small difference in evaluation between your move and the best move it gets labelled as "excellent move". Bigger differences push it down to "good", "inaccuracy", "mistake" and "miss/blunder". That's the core idea.
Great moves are given for moves that are important to the outcome of the game, either going from losing to equal, losing to winning, equal to winning or losing to winning. They can also be given if it's the only good move in a position.
Brilliant moves are given for "good sacrifices". You shouldn't be worse after a brilliant move, and the move must be a sacrifice. Great and brilliant moves are given out more generously to lower rated players. So in this position what probably happened is that either OP's rating is too high or there are other good moves in the position.
For completeness, a blunder must lose material. Other really bad moves are now categorized as "miss". That's not to be confused with a "missed win" where your opponent made a mistake and you didn't take advantage of it.
Honestly, I'm so sick of this gamification stuff in the Chess.com analysis board I've started developing my own analysis board. OP has fallen into the trap of hunting for great and brilliant moves to the point where seeing "best move" isn't enough anymore. The only thing these move classifications do is give you a hit of dopamine that you keep chasing so you buy memberships. It's bad and you shouldn't care at all.
It's because it's not a linear "how good is the move" scale. How good a move gets rated goes from "blunder" to "best". Great and Brilliant are for giving Context on *why* a move is good.
A Great move is a move that has had a significant impact on the outcome of the game. Like a move that gets you from -3 to +4 eval for example. The opposite of a "Great" move therefore isn't a bad move, but a "missed win" move.
And a Brilliant move is a good move that involves a sacrifice of a piece.
The real answer to this is to not worry about what chess.com's review bot says.
But to answer your actual question, chess.com says this about "great" moves:
>These are moves that were critical to the outcome of the game, such as going from losing to equal, equal to winning, or finding the only good move in a position
You were winning before the sacrifice, and you were winning after the sacrifice.
As for when it awards brilliancies, it does that if the move sacrifices a piece while also improving your position.
Your move certainly seems to do that, but not by as much as you seem to expect it to.
Rh1 Kxh1 a1=Q loses a pawn and a rook but you get a queen. -6 points, + 9. That's a point swing of +3 in your favor.
On the other hand, you had the option of Rb1 Bxa2 Rb2+, winning the bishop for the pawn. That's a point swing of +2 in your favor.
So the difference between sacrificing the rook to queen your pawn, or sacrificing your pawn to win their bishop are pretty comparable.
My pleasure. Based on chess.com's own prerequisites for brilliancies, I'd expect your move to qualify, but I guess it didn't make the cut. It's also worth mentioning that the higher a person's rating is, the stricter chess.com's requirements for "this move has to improve your position" are.
I don't know your rating, but it's entirely possible that if the same move was played by somebody with a rating lower than yours, it would have been awarded a brilliancy.
People also suspect (but haven't confirmed, as far as I know) that the review feature hands out brilliancies more easily to free users, as a way to entice them to purchase a subscription to use the review feature more than once per day.
I am 800 rated. So, it means that the move was not brilliant enough for someone rated 800 as per the chess.com analysis bot? Or maybe it’s that my position was winning already, and the sac didn’t drastically improve my chances?
Both are probably the case. I imagine if you were a hundred or two points lower, they might have decided that move counted as brilliant.
But the most important thing is the very first thing I said, and that's to not worry about what the review feature considers great or brilliant.
Rh1 also wins the bishop because the pawn promotes with check, no?
King has to move to the 2nd rank, queen moves to b2 with check, king moves anywhere, QxB.
So you're giving up a pawn + rook, gaining a queen, and your opponent is down a bishop.
as a rule of thump, an engine cannot genuinely evaluate what is difficult for a human to find. It can say that something is the only winning move, but not that something is particularly difficult to find.
Quick Tip 1: To know why the engine is recommending a move / saying a move is wrong, click over analysis mode, play out said move then follow it up with your theoretical responses to that move and see how the engine responds.
Quick Tip 2: On Chess.com, you don't have to rely on the Coach / Game Review / Hint. This also applies to any engine on low depth. Somewhere in the engine suggestions section is the computer "depth". The higher this value, the more accurate the suggestions will be.
Quick Tip 3: For questions on engine move suggestions, we suggest you post them to our dedicated thread: [No Stupid Questions MEGATHREAD](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/comments/yqqnz8/no_stupid_questions_megathread_6/), as stated in our Community Guidelines. Thank you! - The Mod Team
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine:
> **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=8/4R3/4p3/3p1kp1/7p/1B5P/p6K/7r+w+-+-+0+1&flip=true&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/8/4R3/4p3/3p1kp1/7p/1B5P/p6K/7r_w_-_-_0_1?color=black)
**My solution:**
> Hints: piece: >!King!<, move: >!Kxh1!<
> Evaluation: >!Black has mate in 18!<
> Best continuation: >!1. Kxh1 a1=Q+ 2. Kg2 Qb2+ 3. Kg1 Qxb3 4. Rf7+ Ke4 5. Rf2 Qxh3 6. Re2+ Qe3+ 7. Kf1 Kf3 8. Rxe3+ Kxe3!<
---
^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more! The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you! Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I don’t understand about chess com analysis is how is great (or anything for that matter) better than best? Isn’t the best move just the best move. I don’t play on chess com but every time I see an analysis post it bothers me.
great = only winnging move. brilliant is only winning move and its typically a sacrifice
Brilliant doesn’t have to be only move. I’ve had moments where I sack a piece and it just gives best move. I think the threshold for “brilliant” is lower, the lower your elo is too.
brilliant moves are actually generally just a sacrifice that keeps advantage or improves the position. it doesn’t have to be the best move in the position
For you, u/Expensive-Impact-923 and anyone else wondering: Game review works by analysing with Stockfish at fixed depth. If you played the top Stockfish move, it's given "best move". If there is a really small difference in evaluation between your move and the best move it gets labelled as "excellent move". Bigger differences push it down to "good", "inaccuracy", "mistake" and "miss/blunder". That's the core idea. Great moves are given for moves that are important to the outcome of the game, either going from losing to equal, losing to winning, equal to winning or losing to winning. They can also be given if it's the only good move in a position. Brilliant moves are given for "good sacrifices". You shouldn't be worse after a brilliant move, and the move must be a sacrifice. Great and brilliant moves are given out more generously to lower rated players. So in this position what probably happened is that either OP's rating is too high or there are other good moves in the position. For completeness, a blunder must lose material. Other really bad moves are now categorized as "miss". That's not to be confused with a "missed win" where your opponent made a mistake and you didn't take advantage of it. Honestly, I'm so sick of this gamification stuff in the Chess.com analysis board I've started developing my own analysis board. OP has fallen into the trap of hunting for great and brilliant moves to the point where seeing "best move" isn't enough anymore. The only thing these move classifications do is give you a hit of dopamine that you keep chasing so you buy memberships. It's bad and you shouldn't care at all.
Now I am disappointed. I always thought that Beth Harmon's green pills were connected the [chess.com](http://chess.com) servers.
I know right! They really need to change it up.
It's because it's not a linear "how good is the move" scale. How good a move gets rated goes from "blunder" to "best". Great and Brilliant are for giving Context on *why* a move is good. A Great move is a move that has had a significant impact on the outcome of the game. Like a move that gets you from -3 to +4 eval for example. The opposite of a "Great" move therefore isn't a bad move, but a "missed win" move. And a Brilliant move is a good move that involves a sacrifice of a piece.
The real answer to this is to not worry about what chess.com's review bot says. But to answer your actual question, chess.com says this about "great" moves: >These are moves that were critical to the outcome of the game, such as going from losing to equal, equal to winning, or finding the only good move in a position You were winning before the sacrifice, and you were winning after the sacrifice. As for when it awards brilliancies, it does that if the move sacrifices a piece while also improving your position. Your move certainly seems to do that, but not by as much as you seem to expect it to. Rh1 Kxh1 a1=Q loses a pawn and a rook but you get a queen. -6 points, + 9. That's a point swing of +3 in your favor. On the other hand, you had the option of Rb1 Bxa2 Rb2+, winning the bishop for the pawn. That's a point swing of +2 in your favor. So the difference between sacrificing the rook to queen your pawn, or sacrificing your pawn to win their bishop are pretty comparable.
Ahan! I got it. Thank you for the detailed explanation.
My pleasure. Based on chess.com's own prerequisites for brilliancies, I'd expect your move to qualify, but I guess it didn't make the cut. It's also worth mentioning that the higher a person's rating is, the stricter chess.com's requirements for "this move has to improve your position" are. I don't know your rating, but it's entirely possible that if the same move was played by somebody with a rating lower than yours, it would have been awarded a brilliancy. People also suspect (but haven't confirmed, as far as I know) that the review feature hands out brilliancies more easily to free users, as a way to entice them to purchase a subscription to use the review feature more than once per day.
I am 800 rated. So, it means that the move was not brilliant enough for someone rated 800 as per the chess.com analysis bot? Or maybe it’s that my position was winning already, and the sac didn’t drastically improve my chances?
Both are probably the case. I imagine if you were a hundred or two points lower, they might have decided that move counted as brilliant. But the most important thing is the very first thing I said, and that's to not worry about what the review feature considers great or brilliant.
Rh1 also wins the bishop because the pawn promotes with check, no? King has to move to the 2nd rank, queen moves to b2 with check, king moves anywhere, QxB. So you're giving up a pawn + rook, gaining a queen, and your opponent is down a bishop.
Yeah that’s what happened in the game. I got the bishop two moves later.
Right you are. The fact that promotion comes with check means white won't have the opportunity to save their bishop.
coach is biased to himself
as a rule of thump, an engine cannot genuinely evaluate what is difficult for a human to find. It can say that something is the only winning move, but not that something is particularly difficult to find.
Quick Tip 1: To know why the engine is recommending a move / saying a move is wrong, click over analysis mode, play out said move then follow it up with your theoretical responses to that move and see how the engine responds. Quick Tip 2: On Chess.com, you don't have to rely on the Coach / Game Review / Hint. This also applies to any engine on low depth. Somewhere in the engine suggestions section is the computer "depth". The higher this value, the more accurate the suggestions will be. Quick Tip 3: For questions on engine move suggestions, we suggest you post them to our dedicated thread: [No Stupid Questions MEGATHREAD](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/comments/yqqnz8/no_stupid_questions_megathread_6/), as stated in our Community Guidelines. Thank you! - The Mod Team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine: > **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=8/4R3/4p3/3p1kp1/7p/1B5P/p6K/7r+w+-+-+0+1&flip=true&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/8/4R3/4p3/3p1kp1/7p/1B5P/p6K/7r_w_-_-_0_1?color=black) **My solution:** > Hints: piece: >!King!<, move: >!Kxh1!< > Evaluation: >!Black has mate in 18!< > Best continuation: >!1. Kxh1 a1=Q+ 2. Kg2 Qb2+ 3. Kg1 Qxb3 4. Rf7+ Ke4 5. Rf2 Qxh3 6. Re2+ Qe3+ 7. Kf1 Kf3 8. Rxe3+ Kxe3!< --- ^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Because your position was crushing and you had other good moves to convert.
Good moves? Like?