Both the Stockfish 16 (7MB) and Stockfish 14 versions currently available at Lichess are using unofficial and smaller NNUEs designed to be faster to download. They are weaker than their official counterparts.
Stockfish 16 with the 7MB NNUE is 60 elo stronger than Lichess' Stockfish 14.
tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/64b6b6abdc56e1650abab4e8But, it is also 67 elo weaker than Stockfish 16 (40MB).
tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/64b6b769dc56e1650abab4fcSo, in order of strength:
1. Stockfish 16 (official, 40MB NNUE)
2. Stockfish 16 (7MB NNUE)
3. Stockfish 14 (Lichess version)
4. Stockfish 11 (it is actually SF_Classical, a little bit stronger than SF 11)
Not sure I understand... Stockfish 16 with 40MB NNUE is also available on lichess.
@RwSF75 said in #11:
> Both the Stockfish 16 (7MB) and Stockfish 14 versions currently available at Lichess are using unofficial and smaller NNUEs designed to be faster to download. They are weaker than their official counterparts.
>
> Stockfish 16 with the 7MB NNUE is 60 elo stronger than Lichess' Stockfish 14.
>
tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/64b6b6abdc56e1650abab4e8>
> But, it is also 67 elo weaker than Stockfish 16 (40MB).
>
tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/64b6b769dc56e1650abab4fc>
> So, in order of strength:
> 1. Stockfish 16 (official, 40MB NNUE)
> 2. Stockfish 16 (7MB NNUE)
> 3. Stockfish 14 (Lichess version)
> 4. Stockfish 11 (it is actually SF_Classical, a little bit stronger than SF 11)
Thank you <3
Sorry for offtop. Any of those engines are about 3600 elo, the differences, I believe, matters only for computer vs computer matches, but for analyzing of human games there're about the same.
Can anyone explain, why multiple engines are needed at all on Lichess? Maybe it's better to have just one, but a good one: stable, fast, and small. No need to support of different engines and less confusing for users.
Lichess already has support for external engine, which is more useful I believe, and allow you to use any UCI engine, not only specific web assembly version if Stockfish with specific small NNUEs. Maybe it's better to spend more efforts to make external engine support more user friendly and stable?
Thanks.
All versions of stockfish use the same UCI interface, so supporting multiple versions is not a massive job.
And it lets users choose for themselves which version they want to use, and look at the tradeoff between NN size
and quality of analysis.
> Can anyone explain, why multiple engines are needed at all on Lichess?
More Stockfish is good for you. It’s what the body needs.
@schlawg said in #16:
> More Stockfish is good for you. It’s what the body needs.
I know, more stockfish = better for health..
Thats why I run bots with 28 threads of my Ryzen 5950X almost 24/7 :)
The option to choose Stockfish 16 with 7mb and 40mb is something new, looks like it was recently added. SF16 with 40MB is the strongest, followed by SF16 7MB and down the line. To answer the question as to why we need multiple versions? the same reason why we fortify milk with calcium when it already has calcium, sometimes more is better. Having more options is a good thing. Stockfish 16 40MB is the strongest, but has a higher memory footprint and may not be the best option for phones or weaker devices. The 7MB version may yield faster results but it's a bit weaker and regular 16 NNUE is probably the fastest and most balanced, but the weaker of the 3.
@lena741 said in #14:
> Sorry for offtop. Any of those engines are about 3600 elo, the differences, I believe, matters only for computer vs computer matches, but for analyzing of human games there're about the same.
About the same yes, but not the same. A stronger angine can produce the same quality of analysis in less time.
The difference between 7MB and 40MB is exactly 33MB.
