What qualifies as a "brilliant" move?

This seems more a fault on the opponent who misses a shot for you than you seeing something not readily apparent on the board and going for it. What we're starting to get here is that the term "brilliant" has lost much of its meaning.

Incase you don't know, chess.com released their own article talking about brilliant moves, among the other types of moves (i.e. "Great", "Miss", "Excellent", etc.). This is a quote from that article:

" Brilliant Moves are always the best or nearly best move in the position, but they are also special in some way.
We replaced the old Brilliant algorithm with a simpler definition: a Brilliant move is when you find a good piece sacrifice. 
There are additional conditions:
You should not be in a bad position after a Brilliant move
You should not be completely winning even if you hadn't found the move.
We are also more generous in defining a piece sacrifice for newer players compared to those who are higher-rated."

I don't know if this counts as necroposting (if that even is a rule here), but this feed is the first thing to pop up when you search brilliant moves (like what they are). So this is just to clear it up.

Designating a move as 'brilliant' is stupid. Either it is the best move or it isn't. No need for bringing subjectivity into it.

I got 2 brilliant moves , although it was against Martin but it still counts !! He can't take my Bishop because I can win his Queen by a fork

A move must fit the following criteria to be brilliant:

1. It must be an intentional sacrifice or hanging of a piece.

2. It must put your opponent in zugzwang; whether they take your sacrifice or not (assuming they even have a choice), it hurts their position.

3. The move must be at least somewhat unintuitive. If it's way too obvious (i.e a back rank mate), it will only be a "Best" move.

This is not what zugzwang means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

Zugzwang is when you would be fine if you could pass instead of moving. It occurs mostly in endgames.

Also, your 3. point is certainly not true. Some entirely obvious "sacrfices" have been seen labeled brilliant.

Funny how you ignore the part of the article that says "More generally, the term can also be used to describe a situation where none of the available options lead to a good outcome."

Citing an unreliable source, and ignoring information that contradicts what you want to think. Job well done.

That "more generally part" refers to the everyday use of the word, which has nothing to do with the chess usage. Looking at the links, those are from journalists writing about non-chess stuff. That's not how chess players since the late 19th century.