All Topics
All Topics
Technology
Technology
Design
Design
Programming
Programming
Science
Science
News
News
Gaming
Gaming
Entertainment
Entertainment
Business
Business
Finance
Finance
Sports
Sports
Health
Health
Food
Food
Travel
Travel
Art
Art
Music
Music
Books
Books
Education
Education
Politics
Politics
Personal
Personal
No algorithm. No AI slop. No ads. Just RSS. Pro-human. Indie writers. Real journalism. Open web. Chronological. Hand toasted.

Performance Discrepancy Analysis: Lichess Browser Stockfish vs Local Setup

By

HNLurker2

4mo ago· 1 min readenInsight

Summary

A user is investigating performance discrepancies between Lichess's browser-based Stockfish analysis and their local Stockfish setup. They observe that Lichess reports higher nodes per second (1 MN/s vs 600 kN/s) but takes significantly longer to reach depth 30 (2:30 vs 53 seconds). The user notes that Lichess appears more "active" with frequent evaluation updates and seeks to understand these contradictory performance metrics.

Key quotes

· 4 pulled
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.
Snippet from the RSS feed
I’m trying to understand a discrepancy between Lichess’s analysis board and my own Stockfish setup.

You might also wanna read