lichess is a bit behind computer analysis (and chess database)

lichess.org/analysis in the analysis board, the most strongest engine is stockfish 14+ NNUE (I suppose there’s also stockfish 11+ HCE but it’s 3 versions weaker)
in game analysis,the strongest (and only) engine is stockfish 15.1 NNUE
In the database, it says that there are 174014 master games

However, in chess.com the analysis engine is stockfish 16 and torch and KomodoLCE
in game analysis the engine is stockfish 16
In the database, it says there are 3540607 master games

lichess is quite behind all the newest chess engines and database games, the only advantage that lichess gives it’s that’s it’s free.

and that’s that.

Oh no my analysis is only 3450 instead of 3510 or so.... that's going to make such a big difference

Who cares?, you blundered the queen at move 5, why do you need a 5000 elo machine to tell you suck and proceed to give you an explanation in a perfect game that you will never be able to follow, memorize nor understand?

Yeah, it's like complaining that your 3rd grade math teacher only had one Ph.D.

Clearly it is a huge difference and those claiming otherwise are lichess shills :)

wow,first day back from my vacation and saw 8 downvotes, my personal best

it's not only that it doesn't really matter, it also is literally not the correct comparison. sf n is not absolutely better than sf n-1 or even sf n-k. it depends on exact settings, number of nodes, depth. sf 16 at depth 1 will not be stronger than sf 14 at depth 50.
you basically ignored everything other than the version number of sf.

same for the database. a database is not superior just because it has a higher number of games. if i put the same game several million times in a database, i have not created the greatest database ever.

you are comparing raw numbers where it barely makes any sense, and then claiming superiority.

@Alientcp said in #3:
> Who cares?, you blundered the queen at move 5, why do you need a 5000 elo machine to tell you suck and proceed to give you an explanation in a perfect game that you will never be able to follow, memorize nor understand?
ok, that’s rude.
Firstly, I didn’t blunder a queen on move 5 in any of my games
Secondly, there is no 5000 elo machine currently in 2023
thirdly, I’m not that bad, I’m just 100 elo lower than you
forthly, I didn’t say the machine proceed to give me an examination of a perfect game, I just want to know what is the perfect move in a position, and try to memorize and copy it.

if you still don’t agree, then use stockfish 1 as your engine

@glbert said in #7:
> it's not only that it doesn't really matter, it also is literally not the correct comparison. sf n is not absolutely better than sf n-1 or even sf n-k. it depends on exact settings, number of nodes, depth. sf 16 at depth 1 will not be stronger than sf 14 at depth 50.
> you basically ignored everything other than the version number of sf.
>
> same for the database. a database is not superior just because it has a higher number of games. if i put the same game several million times in a database, i have not created the greatest database ever.
>
> you are comparing raw numbers where it barely makes any sense, and then claiming superiority.
I am assuming Depth and nodes are the same
sf14 d50<sf16 d50

@salmon_rushdie said in #2:
> Oh no my analysis is only 3450 instead of 3510 or so.... that's going to make such a big difference
oh, so sf1 and sf16 is not going to make such a big difference