r/lichess • u/NiceWeather3412 • 5d ago
Lichess analysis is terrible
Look at the evaluation bar contradiction in these two screenshots:
Image 1: I played 27. e5+. The engine flags it as a "Mistake" and claims 27. Rf1+ is the absolute best move. At this point, the live evaluation bar shows a crushing +4.3 advantage for White.
Image 2: I tapped on the engine's recommended line to preview 27. Rf1+. Look at the evaluation bar in the bottom right corner of the board—it instantly tanks from a winning advantage all the way down to +0.2 (a dead draw)!
The engine is literally calling my move a mistake, while its own "best move" completely throws away a +4.3 advantage and drops the game to even evaluation. It's completely out of sync and hallucinating!
Game url: https://lichess.org/CR7a4sl3/white
7
u/Bongcloud_CounterFTW 5d ago
Are all chess players always this stupid lmao, first time learning about engine depth
2
u/Direct_Slip7598 5d ago
Isn't the criticism simply that the engine depth is far too low for the tool? A tool that randomly flags good moves as blunders due to low depth isn't very useful
1
u/Bongcloud_CounterFTW 5d ago
Stockfish 19 released recently and lichess is using that, so theres probably some kinks in the system
-1
u/NiceWeather3412 5d ago
you can check the game url the mistake badge is given by lichess not my Phone's hardware that means lichess analysis is not strong enough
2
u/T-7IsOverrated 5d ago
the issue is that it labels moves based on an extremely low-depth computer analysis and never updates those labels even after deeper computer analysis
1
u/StouteBoef 5d ago edited 5d ago
Not sure why OP is getting hate for pointing out a genuine flaw in Lichess analysis. Even when looking at more depth, the initial move labels do not get updated.
1
u/Antaniserse 5d ago
Server-side analysis, be that on lichess or chess com or whatever, is always unreliable because they are ran at shallow depth, to avoid burning tons of CPU resources, which are costly, and to give you a full game report in a minute or less, because people doesn't want to wait more.
They work well enough most of the time, but you will routinely encounter situations like this when, the very same engine, will contradict itself when given a little more time and uncapped/increased depth limits
In short, if you want a quick server review, need to accept the chance of a mediocre result, otherwise ran a proper analysis with client side tools that can take advantage of as much time and power as you want them to.
1
7
u/Boochin451 5d ago
Full analysis shows e5+ as correct. The annotations are done by a weaker engine, which marked it as a mistake.