Ask HN: Discrepancy between Lichess and Stockfish
21 points| HNLurker2 | 1 month ago
On Lichess (browser-based analysis), Stockfish reports close to 1 MN/s on my Redmi Note 14 Pro. However, when I run Stockfish locally via a Python program using the native executable, I only see around 600 kN/s.
What’s confusing is that despite the higher reported speed, Lichess takes about 2:30 to reach depth 30, while my local setup reaches depth 30 in about 53 seconds, even though it reports a lower N/s. Lichess also appears much more “active” in terms of frequent evaluation updates.
I suspect this has to do with how N/s is measured or displayed (instantaneous vs average), differences in search configuration (continuous search vs restarts, MultiPV, hash reuse), or overhead from the way the engine is driven (e.g., UI or I/O throttling). It also raises the question of whether “depth 30” is directly comparable across different frontends.
Has anyone looked into how Lichess reports Stockfish speed, or why a setup showing higher N/s can still take significantly longer to reach the same nominal depth?
anematode|1 month ago
Viren6|1 month ago
See https://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/69515c60572093c1... and https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/pull/18671
frenchtoast8|1 month ago
y-curious|1 month ago
I would rule that out first
1: https://lichess.org/get-fishnet
y-curious|1 month ago
https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/groundbreaking-im...
Viren6|1 month ago
eterm|1 month ago
grumpopotamus|1 month ago
In Lichess I think you can also choose different eval nets. There's a small one and a big one. That will affect N/s.
Have you compared how many threads each are using?
Furthermore, Lichess Stockfish is a WASM build while your local Stockfish is a native binary executable.
Many have already mentioned number of variations will significantly affect time to a certain depth.
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]
agalunar|1 month ago
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]
HNLurker2|1 month ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]