1

enter image description here 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.

Improve this question
4
  • 4
    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.
    – SecretAgentMan
    Jan 11 at 18:08
  • 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, not a quad fork. (acknowledge here the quad fork still works, but you get the idea)
    – SecretAgentMan
    Jan 11 at 18:12
  • 6
    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.
    – John Gordon
    Jan 12 at 1:28
  • If it makes you feel brilliant by claiming so, then yes.
    – user28031
    Jan 12 at 4:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
13

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.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.