lichess.org
Donate

the problem with analysis depth and controversy in two analyses

i guess it is not a novelty, but game's "computer analysis" isn't perfect. you sometimes get complicated strategical positions and wait for local analysis to reach depth 42 or smth, and it's result might be not the same as at the line below the board. example:
"short - timman" game. computer analysis below shows, that there was a moment where nigel lost his advantage. analysis above shows white's huge advantage while getting deeper.

solution proposal: the computer analysis line can be updated after creation. if lichess saves not only the evaluation line, but also the depth of every move. then, if i analyse a certain position for a long time and wait for a bigger depth, the line can be updated with new evaluation and depth.

i hope it's realisation is not complicated. and surely many other community members would support the idea
I'm not an expert with engines/computers but I think that computer analysis of a game is kept separate of analysis of individual moves because the "request a computer analysis" button activates the lichess server analysis, whereas analyzing a move for a certain depth is a local analysis (your own computer's analysis activated by the browser).

I'm not sure if updating server analysis with higher depth local analysis is difficult to implement, but I agree that it would be helpful. I have had some instances where the computer analysis of the game turned out to be inaccurate in some complicated positions and I had to use a larger depth to see where I really made mistakes.
We need more update for lichess
Thanks lichess about this site great
i'd like to know if there is any lichess admin who have seen the idea, which i propose. or maybe i should write that directly to lichess by email. if any administration member is here, may u please tell me, either that's being developed, or why not? thanx

btw, i join @BestRival. thank you a lot, for what u've already done

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.