# Please, remove new analysis features

I had a mistake given in the suggestion by the analysis that was quite blatant. I brought it up in this thread and the PGN is posted here. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/f4-is-best-really?page=2

and here is the screenshot I took.

The really odd thing is that one of the lines listed in the screenshot shows that mate in 1 was seen, but it still suggested f4 as the "best" move!

As an aside, I too would like the option to use the old analysis. One thing I miss is the "accuracy" percentage that it gave. I found it useful as a general idea of how well I was doing. I was often getting 45-50% and would know that I was doing pretty well (unless my opponent also got similar numbers ) and it made me pay special attention when I saw the number was either higher than normal or a lot lower than normal so I would spend more time analyzing that game to figure out why it was so.

The new analysis puts that metric behind a paywall. And its silly, because I guess technically I can just take the number of "best moves," that is listed by the analysis,  and divide by the total number of moves on a calculator to get my percentage, but it makes the site seem so petty, that it would make me have to use my calculator app when it could just give me that easy calculation. What's the point of making someone pay for a simple calculation like "x divided by y?" especially when the x and y are already provided!

I saw that garbage f4 analysis, @PkPum. Thanks for sharing, I've already go the team looking into it.

From what I've seen, the analysis can lag a bit when you do a bunch of successive stepping forward and backwards. I'm guessing f4 was the best for a previous or subsequent position?

Hi. Does anyone have the same problem? When I have more than 3 engine lines, the last line freezes after an initial  calculation (maybe of 1 sec.) while the other lines keeps optimizing. It can even involve the same positon after a few moves, where the first lines announces mate, while the last line is still nowhere close to finding it...  - I think I had the same problem with the old analysis, though

dallin wrote:

The rollback to Stockfish 9 will be temporary. We have a working build using the latest Stockfish 10 release already, but it will require some validation next week before we can consider release.

• Hi @dallin trust you doing well. Any word on fixing of Stockfish 10 for use on the new analysis engine system? Or have you already solved the wrapper issue and the analysis is already using Stockfish 10? It would be nice to get some closure on this. Naturally we don't want something implemented untill it's 100% working properly, so I am not trying to put pressure on your team. It would just be nice to know what progress has been made and what the position is.

@GhstlJrg1-0 not following you. The max no of additional analysis lines is 3. When you say 4th analysis line what are you referring to? When I have the "show lines" check box ticked I have 3 lines of variations showing.... the max no I can set in engine settings. Have you got a screenshot you can post and point to this 4th line you are referring to maybe.

@flashlight002 we plan to have Stockfish 10 back next week. We can't guarantee that it will be 100% working, because there may be bugs with Stockfish 10 that we cannot control. But it will will be free from any known bugs on our end.

notmtwain wrote:
giancz91 wrote:

I tried it and it's just terrible, apart its slow, heavy UI it makes a lot of mistakes

Slow? The old one took a lot longer to run.

The max analysis took many minutes.

The new one is done in ten seconds.

agreed

I don't like the new analysis. I have had many games won where it has two big question marks on a move I made, ( considering it a blunder), and yet that's the move that helped me win the game. Plus, it only calculates accuracy when I play correspondence chess, it doesn't give me a percentage when I play blitz. It needs work!

MorphyManiac ha scritto:
notmtwain wrote:
giancz91 wrote:

I tried it and it's just terrible, apart its slow, heavy UI it makes a lot of mistakes

Slow? The old one took a lot longer to run.

The max analysis took many minutes.

The new one is done in ten seconds.

agreed

I said UI is slow, not analysis. Do you know what that means? If you don't understand what you're reading, maybe it's better to avoid to answer.

and fix the buggy anylysis too

giancz91 wrote:
MorphyManiac ha scritto:
notmtwain wrote:
giancz91 wrote:

I tried it and it's just terrible, apart its slow, heavy UI it makes a lot of mistakes

Slow? The old one took a lot longer to run.

The max analysis took many minutes.

The new one is done in ten seconds.

agreed

I said UI is slow, not analysis. Do you know what that means? If you don't understand what you're reading, maybe it's better to avoid to answer.

If "UI" is restricted to user interface,  your complaint makes no sense. The various buttons and choices respond quickly, offering virtually unlimited possibilities for analysis.

What can you actually mean? In what way can "UI" be termed "slow and heavy"?

As I pointed out, the overall analysis is minutes faster than before. Do you agree with that at least?

Please enlighten me, Professore. Don't tell me that the analysis is bad. That is a different subject.

@dallin thank you for the update. Much appreciated. I did not know/was aware that Stockfish 10 actually had any issues. Do you know what these are? Have you had reports of these?

@GhstlJrg1-0 my apologies for my last post were I said I wasn't following you regarding how you were showing 4 lines. I see now that the dev guys have increased the self analysis lines options to 5. So I get what you are now saying. Sorry!

I know that these calculations are all done on the client side using your own processor cores and hardware. The more lines one has under analysis the greater the computational resources required. On many GUIs one has the ability  to change the "Thread" and "hash" values...threads is the no of physical cores one wants to make available to the engine. Usually the default is 1 but I have increased it often to 2 and then computational power to the chess engine is greatly improved. However in the engine settings for chess.com there is no Thread or hash setting. So I don't know what the background instructions are asking of local client side resources. If you have other programs running at the same time that are using lots of processing resources then possibly this could be influencing your problem. Try shutting down other big resource hogging programs and see what happens.

I haven't run 4 lines yet as part of my analyses (I have mine on 3 ), but will do some testing and see if I experience any issues such as you have explained. My one device has 8 physical cores so I will test it on that device too.

notmtwain ha scritto:
giancz91 wrote:
MorphyManiac ha scritto:
notmtwain wrote:
giancz91 wrote:

I tried it and it's just terrible, apart its slow, heavy UI it makes a lot of mistakes

Slow? The old one took a lot longer to run.

The max analysis took many minutes.

The new one is done in ten seconds.

agreed

I said UI is slow, not analysis. Do you know what that means? If you don't understand what you're reading, maybe it's better to avoid to answer.

If "UI" is restricted to user interface,  your complaint makes no sense. The various buttons and choices respond quickly, offering virtually unlimited possibilities for analysis.

What can you actually mean? In what way can "UI" be termed "slow and heavy"?

As I pointed out, the overall analysis is minutes faster than before. Do you agree with that at least?

Please enlighten me, Professore. Don't tell me that the analysis is bad. That is a different subject.

Yes, I was talking about the UI. You think it is fast, I do not. My complaint makes no sense? That is your truth, mine is different.

The new analysis is faster, I agree with that, of course. By the way, I don't care at all, since it's VERY inaccurate. I've got some evidence it works at depth 14, I will post some screenshots in a few days.

It's calculated at depth=20..   It  shows on the sidewhen it's analysing. The analysis wass  little sketchy at first, but now it's more accurate.

Rasta_Jay ha scritto:

It's calculated at depth=20..   It  shows on the sidewhen it's analysing. The analysis wass  little sketchy at first, but now it's more accurate.

Yes, it says 20, but, as I said, I've got some evidence it calculates at depth 14.

Were analyzing analysis here. Yes. I would safely bet something is wrong.