Are "Brilliant moves" in computer analysis just any decent sacrifice now?

Firstly I had never seen any in any of my games, I then went through a fair number of master games and never saw any there either!

I had one in one of my games. I think it's just because it was a fast game, and I saw some tactic without checking it out first, and did it anyway. The computer awarded me a "brilliancy", probably because no "sensible" player would have played it LOL.

It gave me a "!!" for a simple move. Perhaps b/c most people would just try and check with the Q? And this was a Daily Chess game!

I haven't got a single brilliant move ever before

They are very, very rare. I actually received one. In all of the moves from all of the games - one. And as some have noted, they have never received one.

The definition of Brilliant, I believe, is a best move hard to find. So, in my case, I think it was more luck than skill. Ok, all luck . . . 

@gmatchen, of-course that move is really brilliant move. It threatens checkmate at f2 square. Great position and congratulation for this. Proud of your game. Would you please post the PGN of your game or the link to the game here? Love to watch the interesting game.

https://www.chess.com/a/22Hz29MK4fz7k

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/4463682579

ha ha yeah I think we can all agree that Stockfish's "brilliancy" algorithm is ham-fisted. Not to take away from the quality of your play, but all 3 moves (including the stock stalemate trick with bishop pawn about to queen) were unremarkable.

Threatening mate in one is certainly not what makes a brilliant move

So I think we can all now agree that Stockfish's "brilliancy" algorithm is officially busted!

I didn't say the move wasn't brilliant, but the reasoning behind it is certainly not that it was threatening mate in one.

@GMatchen I think it's considered "brilliant" because Stockfish at depth 10 still thinks that ...Qf2+ is completely winning (at least it does so on my PC).

I get your point @Sred. Yes @GMatchen the reason behind brilliancy may be something else. Masters can analyze. Except the checkmate along with some threats (and obviously the Knight) I couldn't find any reason.  Is there any NM, CM, GM here to kindly discuss about the brilliancy of the above stated move? If so, then we will be highly glad. Looking forward to hear from some Master on this.

I think computer algorithms can easily evaluate poor moves and blunders by the change in value after the move. But a brilliancy is perhaps more subjective. It would have to be a move that positively changes the evaluation but isn't obvious, an "I never would have seen that!" move. Computers see everything, so how would they know what's brilliant?

Te obvious programming approach would be that the engine needs a certain calculation depth to see the move.

Bottom-line, a "brilliant" move is one which is "very hard to find" and is at the same time very strong.  In a position where there are a few strong moves that win, a "brilliant" move wins very quickly; in a position where there is only one winning or drawing move, but it is very hard to find, that is the brilliant move. Brilliant moves are always counterintuitive in chess. It is silly to ask a computer program (which has no understanding of what "human intuition" is) to label a move as "unintuitive and very hard to find". None of the moves in the above games are truly "brilliant" in that sense.

An engine has a very objective metrics for the notion of "very hard to find", unlike human beings. I also don't think that a brilliant move has to be counter-intuitive.

@GMatchen Re your game, many players would indeed have gone for ...Qf2+, just because after dxc4 Nh3 it's not totally obvious how to continue the attack.