- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

chess.com analysis vs lichess analysis

#22

So here's my conclusion -

Lichess engine considers every book move which gives the opponent a bit of an advantage such as -0.9 or -0.8 a blunder and has not been programmed to spot book moves. Meanwhile chess.com engine(s) are programmed to recognise book moves. Why is this bad? Its because if you say that a gambit is a blunder then it would prevent players from playing Gambits like this as this may give them the idea that powerful Gambits like the England Gambit is bad and they may end up underestimating the player who plays this and fall to certain traps.

Overall, it is better to use chess.com analysis and it is easier to use too ( Although you need membership to save it )

So here's my conclusion - Lichess engine considers every book move which gives the opponent a bit of an advantage such as -0.9 or -0.8 a blunder and has not been programmed to spot book moves. Meanwhile chess.com engine(s) are programmed to recognise book moves. Why is this bad? Its because if you say that a gambit is a blunder then it would prevent players from playing Gambits like this as this may give them the idea that powerful Gambits like the England Gambit is bad and they may end up underestimating the player who plays this and fall to certain traps. Overall, it is better to use chess.com analysis and it is easier to use too ( Although you need membership to save it )
#23

The engine isn't an all-knowing entity. It's not because the Englund gambit is refuted and lichess tells about it as a blunder and chess.com tells about it as a book move, that it is forcefully chess.com that's better. Lichess focuses primarily on your mistakes (that's the whole point of analyzing a game, to learn from your mistakes). Chess.com demands to pay every month / year so that you can have a game review of all of your mistakes but also good moves, best moves, great and brilliant moves. IMO this is a complete distraction, I don't care that this is the best move, I care that this is a blunder, and use the engine to discover its opinion about my blunder.

I get that it's appreciable that an engine can tell you that it's a book move, but Stockfish is just Stockfish. It doesn't understand human parts of chess. If I play an opening as Black and the engine tells me +1, I don't care. If I play as Black in the middlegame and the engine tells me +1, I still don't care. If I play an endgame as Black and the engine tells me +1, I care.

People are smart enough to know when to and when not to trust the engine. +2 for White doesn't mean I won't play a Stafford gambit. And also, a lot of people can't afford to pay monthly to play chess (What a swindle if you have to pay to play more than 5 puzzles a day).

The engine isn't an all-knowing entity. It's not because the Englund gambit is refuted and lichess tells about it as a blunder and chess.com tells about it as a book move, that it is forcefully chess.com that's better. Lichess focuses primarily on your mistakes (that's the whole point of analyzing a game, to learn from your mistakes). Chess.com demands to pay every month / year so that you can have a game review of all of your mistakes but also good moves, best moves, great and brilliant moves. IMO this is a complete distraction, I don't care that this is the best move, I care that this is a blunder, and use the engine to discover its opinion about my blunder. I get that it's appreciable that an engine can tell you that it's a book move, but Stockfish is just Stockfish. It doesn't understand human parts of chess. If I play an opening as Black and the engine tells me +1, I don't care. If I play as Black in the middlegame and the engine tells me +1, I still don't care. If I play an endgame as Black and the engine tells me +1, I care. People are smart enough to know when to and when not to trust the engine. +2 for White doesn't mean I won't play a Stafford gambit. And also, a lot of people can't afford to pay monthly to play chess (What a swindle if you have to pay to play more than 5 puzzles a day).
#24

I don't know where you got the idea that chess.com has a stronger engine. Lichess uses Stockfish 15.1 for server analysis of your games, which has an estimated rating of 3850.

Also, the Englund Gambit is objectively a bad opening, so I don't know why you have a problem with it being marked as such.

I don't know where you got the idea that chess.com has a stronger engine. Lichess uses Stockfish 15.1 for server analysis of your games, which has an estimated rating of 3850. Also, the Englund Gambit is objectively a bad opening, so I don't know why you have a problem with it being marked as such.
#25

I really prefer lichess because it’s free and it have a quick analysis-arena tournaments-Swiss tournaments and learning chess basics which chess.com doesn’t have them all

I really prefer lichess because it’s free and it have a quick analysis-arena tournaments-Swiss tournaments and learning chess basics which chess.com doesn’t have them all
#26

@parsa00maleki077 said in #3:

chess.com game review they will show book moves-good moves-best moves and great moves but in lichess game review it doesn't have any of them and it doesn't have mark for them

You can check book moves by pressing the book image. With added information that you can check what other common moves were available.

As good/great move definition is arbitrary and not very good if I remember it correctly. In engine way thingking there is just one correct move and all other as some how bad moves anyway

@parsa00maleki077 said in #3: > chess.com game review they will show book moves-good moves-best moves and great moves but in lichess game review it doesn't have any of them and it doesn't have mark for them You can check book moves by pressing the book image. With added information that you can check what other common moves were available. As good/great move definition is arbitrary and not very good if I remember it correctly. In engine way thingking there is just one correct move and all other as some how bad moves anyway
#27

Im just asking a update for lichess to make it better for example I want lichess add book moves-good moves-best moves and great moves and update their Stockfish because I see on YouTube chess.com Stockfish 3200 rated vs lichess level 8 [3000 rated]
(on different videos) lichess got:1.5 and chess.com got:2.5 points also I want new backgrounds and new piece shapes just this

Im just asking a update for lichess to make it better for example I want lichess add book moves-good moves-best moves and great moves and update their Stockfish because I see on YouTube chess.com Stockfish 3200 rated vs lichess level 8 [3000 rated] (on different videos) lichess got:1.5 and chess.com got:2.5 points also I want new backgrounds and new piece shapes just this
#28

@parsa00maleki077 said in #27:

Im just asking a update for lichess to make it better for example I want lichess add book moves-good moves-best moves and great moves and update their Stockfish because I see on YouTube chess.com Stockfish 3200 rated vs lichess level 8 [3000 rated]
(on different videos) lichess got:1.5 and chess.com got:2.5 points also I want new backgrounds and new piece shapes just this
How do you define brilliant moves? best moves by using engine?. Also lichess engine is much stronger than chess.com. Lichess stockfish has destroyed chess.com in multiple vedios.

@parsa00maleki077 said in #27: > Im just asking a update for lichess to make it better for example I want lichess add book moves-good moves-best moves and great moves and update their Stockfish because I see on YouTube chess.com Stockfish 3200 rated vs lichess level 8 [3000 rated] > (on different videos) lichess got:1.5 and chess.com got:2.5 points also I want new backgrounds and new piece shapes just this How do you define brilliant moves? best moves by using engine?. Also lichess engine is much stronger than chess.com. Lichess stockfish has destroyed chess.com in multiple vedios.
#30

@parsa00maleki077 said in #22:

So here's my conclusion -

Lichess engine considers every book move which gives the opponent a bit of an advantage such as -0.9 or -0.8 a blunder and has not been programmed to spot book moves. Meanwhile chess.com engine(s) are programmed to recognise book moves. Why is this bad? Its because if you say that a gambit is a blunder then it would prevent players from playing Gambits like this as this may give them the idea that powerful Gambits like the England Gambit is bad and they may end up underestimating the player who plays this and fall to certain traps.

Overall, it is better to use chess.com analysis and it is easier to use too ( Although you need membership to save it )

This is not at all a good argument. The Englund gambit is simultaneously a book move and a bad move. Neither Lichess or chess.com is wrong here, and you can't use this to prove one is better than the other.

@parsa00maleki077 said in #22: > So here's my conclusion - > > Lichess engine considers every book move which gives the opponent a bit of an advantage such as -0.9 or -0.8 a blunder and has not been programmed to spot book moves. Meanwhile chess.com engine(s) are programmed to recognise book moves. Why is this bad? Its because if you say that a gambit is a blunder then it would prevent players from playing Gambits like this as this may give them the idea that powerful Gambits like the England Gambit is bad and they may end up underestimating the player who plays this and fall to certain traps. > > Overall, it is better to use chess.com analysis and it is easier to use too ( Although you need membership to save it ) This is not at all a good argument. The Englund gambit is simultaneously a book move and a bad move. Neither Lichess or chess.com is wrong here, and you can't use this to prove one is better than the other.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.