Let's Check Engine Correlation: How to use it

by Albert Silver
10/20/2022 – You've seen videos using it, and articles displaying it, and here is the tutorial on how to use it in all its glory. The Engine Correlation in Let's Check can be a wonderful tool when used properly and comes with a variety of options in both ChessBase 16 and the Fritz interface. Here is the easy-to-use definitive guide.

ChessBase 16 - Mega package Edition 2022 ChessBase 16 - Mega package Edition 2022

Your key to fresh ideas, precise analyses and targeted training!
Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it. Start your personal success story with ChessBase and enjoy the game even more.

More...

The Let's Check function started as a means to distribute computer analysis of games or positions to other users and not only get the feedback of one engine, but of as many as three. This was a 'scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' process as you spent credits to get this, and earned credits by leaving your machine open for others to request the same from your computer. 

A more recent addition to its functionality was to provide a report at the end of the analysis, displayed at the start of the notation, informing you of the Engine Correlation score of both White and Black. This Engine Correlation is a summary of the number of moves that matched the top choices of an engine. If all the moves match the number one choice of an engine then the Engine Correlation score will be 100%.

Why use Let's Check Engine Correlation?

Imagine you are analyzing with only Stockfish, and it says that five moves out of ten are not a match. This might overlook that two of the moves that don't match its choices, are chosen by another top engine such as Komodo Dragon 3. In other words, only five match Stockfish, but seven in all match top engine choices. That is the underlying point of Let's Check's Engine Correlation. When you analyze a game with it, it will not only tell you what a variety of engines thought of each move, it will give you a summary called Engine Correlation at the top, showing the percentage of times a player's moves matched the top choice of an engine.

However, unlike a plain engine comparison, it won't compare with just one top engine move, it will compare with several, and if the move matches any of those engines, then it is a match for Engine Correlation. 

Fat Fritz 2

Fat Fritz 2.0 is the successor to the revolutionary Fat Fritz, which was based on the famous AlphaZero algorithms. This new version takes chess analysis to the next level and is a must for players of all skill levels.

Engine Correlation in ChessBase 16

If you have ChessBase 16 or later, then you can access the pure report with a full averaged summary from multiple games. To access it, highlight one or more games in a database and right-click, select Edit and then at the bottom of the list select Let's Check Engine Correlation.

Regardless of the number of games, you will be given an overall performance of all the players. For example, after asking it to give a report on all the games and players from the 2022 Candidates Tournament. Nepomniachtchi had stomped through the field very impressively and the Engine Correlation agrees with this by showing how much better his standard of moves matched that of the best engines.

Be warned: It will not only ignore any annotations already in the game, but will erase them and replace them with the Let's Check annotations.

You will notice two things in the image above. The first is that Nepomniachtchi's result was 12% higher than any of his rivals, which is a huge difference. The second is that although every player played 14 games, many have only 12 or 13 games reported.

The reason is that Let's Check will ignore common theory moves, and the Engine Correlation will not be reported if the game had too few moves analyzed. Suppose a game was 28 moves long, but 20 moves of it were classified as theory, that means it only had eight moves to actually evaluate, which is too few for it to issue a report.

If we open a sample game we can see a report at the beginning.

Engine Correlation in Fritz

If you are using any of the chess engines that use an updated version of the Fritz interface, such as Fritz 18, Fat Fritz 2, or Komodo Dragon 3, you have some advanced options open to you.

Fritz 18

"Evolving Genius": learn to attack and play brilliancies. Fritz offers you everything you will need as a dedicated chess enthusiast.

Accessing it is just a matter of having a game in front of you, then going to the Analysis menu and at the left select Let's Check Analysis.

Unlike ChessBase 16, this will open a new pane with options.

The first choice is Blunders, Combinations, Training, which will analyze it by searching for missed move so you can test yourself against them. The second is Retrieval Only and is to only consult the cloud for positions in the game that have already been analyzed by other users. This will already yield an Engine Correlation report if enough moves have been analyzed before.

Then we have the more interesting choice: Standard Analysis. The word standard isn't usually the sort of word that is linked to 'interesting', but you will see why. 

Let's click on Advanced. 

Now we have a number of options to play around with. The key to understand here is this: now when you are accessing the Let's Check moves, you will also be using your engine to contribute further analyses. For example, if you select Differing Moves Only, then every time a move in the game was not chosen by other engines, it will analyze with your engine and add the results to the database. This will happen even if the result is in agreement with the other engines.

Reading the results

As mentioned in a previous article, the top players are quite capable of achieving 100% matches or multiple results with 90% or better results. And even a much weaker player can occasionally achieve a high match, so don't read too much into a few isolated high results. I submit one of my own games played some years back:

As you can see, I achieved a match rate of 86%, and yet it means very little other than I was having a very good day that time. 

There are those who say that this sort of result does not mean the player was playing better, but that they were simply playing more engine moves. However, I submit to you that if the engines are all 1000 Elo or better than us, then finding the same moves would almost certainly indicate you also made moves that are far closer to perfect than not.

Links

Born in the US, he grew up in Paris, France, where he completed his Baccalaureat, and after college moved to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He had a peak rating of 2240 FIDE, and was a key designer of Chess Assistant 6. In 2010 he joined the ChessBase family as an editor and writer at ChessBase News. He is also a passionate photographer with work appearing in numerous publications, and the content creator of the YouTube channel, Chess & Tech.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

Hitcher Hitcher 10/28/2022 06:31
This function doesn't work in Chessbase 16. When selecting a game I see the function "Let's check Engine Correlation"as described above but I get the message "not enough moves"even though the games are 40 moves or more. Only Centipawn analysis does work but that is a different function.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/24/2022 11:26
@mc1483

"Nobody thinks of the simplest explanation, that _maybe_ Niemann is really a super GM, and there's nothing strange in his results OTB, nor in his victory against Carlsen and so on."

Exactly. The fallacy you have pointed to is circular reasoning, that is, one assumes his/her own conclusion. Here is looks like this:

1. I have to prove Niemann was cheating
2. He plays too well
3. Therefore he is cheating

The logical error in the above is the exclusion of the possibility that his high level may be authentic.

@micropro I'm taking the side of let's wait until we find out.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/24/2022 11:25
@mc1483 excuse me for not answering for a while, simply forgot to check this thread these last days.

"my point was that if 68% is enough to defeat the World Champion, while 70% (in average) does not let you have a good tournament, then the whole "Let's Check" statistics about Hand Niemann means nothing."

Yes, this makes sense, I misunderstood your point initially.

"It should be quite clear, not only to "scientists", but even to students in primary schools, that the correlations found by Let's Check have little to do with real performances, and in my opinion nor even with the real level of play. Still, such statistics look to someone like the holy Graal of cheating detection."

To me it was clear from the start. Such analysis can forment suspicion in one, but it is absolutely necessary to look into the suspicion factually before an accusation is made. Carlsen may be honestly suspicious towards Niemann, I have no reason to question that, but he should have been more patient with the procedure and wait for investigations to complete before announcing anything.

"I'm now convinced that the Let's Check correlation means nothing when applied to a single game or tournament. Maybe it means something when averaged throughout a lot of tournaments, with hundreds of games involved."

The greater the sample, the more trustworthy the aggregation is, assuming that the methodology has merit.
micropro micropro 10/22/2022 02:17
@arzi
Concerning electronic devices, if it wakes up during a round, the game ends of course.
But in a general way, I'm always annoyed by electronic devices in the "play room".

I'm quite fairplay so sometimes I don't even care (but I'm far from being 'good' at chess for now) but yesterday I've played 3 rounds of in rapid tournament, a smartphone rang, the guy lost. Plain and simple. It was a kid who lost but at least he learnt the rule (the hard way).

@Science22

If you are right, the investigation should come to the same conclusion. So, if you are so sure about what you're saying, wait. Because you'll have the satisfaction not only to be right and your opinion recognized but also the pleasure of saying "I told you so.".
micropro micropro 10/22/2022 02:08
Wow so much comments. I wasn't expecting any more of these.

@lajosarpad
Hmm... I've already asked him/her/x to be calmer in my early comments. I didn't know it could be this much heated on the comment section.
I'm not keen on giving my opinion because we don't really know what's going on really and because taking sides will be like making some allegation for which we've got nothing to prove.

@wintermuteX
Thanks for your feedback. As far as Hyperthreading is concerned, I disable it in the BIOS. I've already had some trouble with it for scientific computational tasks.
In fact, to be sure we should check, if possible and legally allowed, if the engine is designed to work with hyperthreading. Otherwise it won't help at all.
I don't know about the turbo boost feature however. I don't like it even if I understand the goal and purpose of it.
Science22 Science22 10/22/2022 02:04
The statistical methods used in Silvers articles are to my opinion deeply inappropriate and only have the purpose of putting Magnus Carlsen in a bad light. He does not give a correct and nuanced picture of the situation. I have no idea why. But of course, the many trolls swallow it hole.

To my opinion the evidence are overwhelming. Hans Nieman consistently cheated over the board in his career, also in the game against Magnus Carlsen.

He gets caught not only by solid statistical method but also by simple thing people with a dyssocial personality structure always overlooks in their blind selfcentred confidence. Namely that along the way he has received help from people he doesn't care about when they have given the help.
wintermuteX wintermuteX 10/21/2022 08:54
Let's Check doesn't even register Komodo Dragon as an engine. It shows up as "New Engine", and is quickly knocked off the Let's Check database by powerhouses such as Fritz 11, Houdini 6, Stockfish 4, and, ironically, Komodo 9.

Please add the many new engines to the Let's Check database. Currently, it's far faster to analyze with Fritz than any other engine. This seems rigged. You shouldn't need twice the CPU speed to notch the same score on Let's Check with Stockfish 15 compared to Fritz 18. If you use Komodo Dragon 3.1, it will take you 20-50x as long to participate in Let's Check Analysis.

This is really unacceptable. Chessbase has been selling Komodo Dragon for ages. Add it, and fix the slow speeds for many engines. Currently, you cannot get your analysis onto Let's Check with Dragon or lc0, and with Fritz beating out Stockfish 15, and Stockfish dev builds beating out SF15, the Let's Check tool is far from where it could be.

Again, please consider doing a thorough addition of the many engines out there, and adjusting their speed index such that Fritz 11 SE or Houdini 4 at depth 25 aren't knocking SF15 at Depth 60 off of the Let's Check database. We're losing so much valuable data. I don't think you should be able to contribute analyses to Let's Check with these older engines, but due to how the system is structured, many people prefer to use older engines.

The reason is simple. If you analyze with Stockfish 15, the most popular engine, your analyses will be *erased* by anyone else using SF15. However, if you use an odd engine like Fritz 16 w32, then nobody can replace your score. It has to be knocked off the leaderboard by up to 3 other scores.

Further, the "Speed Index" is broken, or appears to be. My "Speed Index" drops by 33% when I go from 4 to 8 cores; perhaps this is a penalty for hyperthreading. Sure, it's not double the speed, but it's CERTAINLY not 33% slower. However, Let's Check treats it as such.
mc1483 mc1483 10/21/2022 02:45
@arzi: I'm now convinced that the Let's Check correlation means nothing when applied to a single game or tournament. Maybe it means something when averaged throughout a lot of tournaments, with hundreds of games involved. Many "experts" have pointed out that Niemann's correlation throughout the last three years is about 65%, something only super GMs achieve. Such experts "deduce" this is too much for him, thus he's cheating. Nobody thinks of the simplest explanation, that _maybe_ Niemann is really a super GM, and there's nothing strange in his results OTB, nor in his victory against Carlsen and so on.
arzi arzi 10/21/2022 01:17
I agree, mc1483.
mc1483 mc1483 10/21/2022 01:08
@lajosarpad: my point was that if 68% is enough to defeat the World Champion, while 70% (in average) does not let you have a good tournament, then the whole "Let's Check" statistics about Hand Niemann means nothing. Also, Albert Silver specified that Aronian had 3 games over 90% (in a single tournament! You will remember Niemann has 23 in 50 tournaments, another thing deemed highly suspsicious), and all of three were just draws. The best correlation Niemann had (88%) was also a draw; furthermore, Firouzja, who won the tournament, had just the fifth best correlation overall (out of 9 players).
It should be quite clear, not only to "scientists", but even to students in primary schools, that the correlations found by Let's Check have little to do with real performances, and in my opinion nor even with the real level of play. Still, such statistics look to someone like the holy Graal of cheating detection. Unbelievable.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/21/2022 11:49
@Science22 Let me first say that upon your first accusation or insult I may univocally stop replying to you in this thread as well. Not because I would not have an answer, but, to optimize the time of other fellow commenters and readers.

Coffee is bitter, but it wakes you up to the reality: you were wrong all along. The grapes are sour for Carlsen after his loss, but he relied on his feelings and you rely on him, as you openly stated. An investigation is on-going organized by FIDE and Niemann has sued Carlsen for defamation. We'll see how these two processes end up. No need to insult and accuse others, because, if it turns out that you were wrong, then, in hindsight your comments will look really awkward if you do not behave in a civilized way. I'm aware that you do not use your real name and, perhaps saving face is a partial motivation for that.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/21/2022 11:49
@micropro

Science22 suggests to you that in the debates he faced personal attacks by people skeptical to the accusation. I was part of those debates and I do not recall Science22 being so tendenciously attacked personally. Some people were mocking him when his arguments were too absurd or when he personally attacked and accused us. According to Science22 I am an FSB agent, even though I'm commenting using my own name and he/she is using the benefit of anonimity.

If you ask anyone, there is a high chance they will evaluate Science22's arguments as not being factual and his attitude to be offensive and abusive towards anyone disagreeing with him/her. There was a comment at an article asking specifically Science22 and Arzi to be civil (Science22 was hysterical, as usual and Arzi was mocking him/her as a result), yet, this did not stop Science22 from asking me to listen to the wise words of that comment :D

According to him/her, he/she is a "scientist". Yet, his comments contain such fervor and hatred, accompanied by fallacies that I really doubt he/she would have any connection to science. And the fact that the same person claimed he/she funded chess tournaments and played against Tal has not cleared my doubts :)
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/21/2022 11:48
mc1483 "We should believe that 68% was enough to defeat Carlsen, while 70% did not prevent Aronian to play so poorly?"

Yes. Carlsen that day played so imprecisely that, if he was playing like that against an out of form Aronian, then he would have lost against him as well. Also, it is possible that X has better results than Y, while playing more precisely. It all depends on the performance of both players, especially at critical moments.

Both the statistical argument and the broadcast-no-broadcast argument have proven to be weak, so we have a reason to be skeptical about them.

To make an epistemological point: the livelihood, honor and career of a person is so important that we need to be absolutely sure when we condemn him/her. As a result, besides the fact that the statistical and broadcast arguments have turned out to be weak, I would not be convinced even if they were strong, until there is factual proof.

It's important to note that Yosha's video was based on Let's check. Silver debunked the points Yosha has made.

@micropro

"I agree a investigation should happen. "

There is already an investigation.

"I have my own opinion and I agree with Carlen's. But if you don't have any bit of evidence, you can shout all you want there's been cheating, you don't make things move in the right direction."

That's the correct attitude. Whatever subjective opinion we may have, such an allegation should be decided one way or the other on factual basis.
arzi arzi 10/21/2022 09:51
micropro: "Honestly, I've been playing in a international tournament last mounth and all the electronic devices are obnoxious as hell. If it were up to me, all the electronic devices should be shut down and sealed in a personal bag during the games."

Well, in our national tournaments, if any of these devices (like phones) wakes up during the rounds, it's an automatic game loss without to need hearing any pointless explanations. It is a great rule.
micropro micropro 10/21/2022 09:11
@Science22

I'm writing this comment just to let you know I acknowledge what you said.

I've not been in the 'chess field' since a long time so maybe it has a lower impact on me.

I've just seen the 'breaking news' on Niemann suing... Let's see how it will unfold in a courtroom. It will settle all 'this'.

You offer: has to accept security system is something I've been thinking too ; all players should take and pass it then.

Honestly, I've been playing in a international tournament last mounth and all the electronic devices are obnoxious as hell. If it were up to me, all the electronic devices should be shut down and sealed in a personal bag during the games.
arzi arzi 10/21/2022 08:06
Science22:"I actually did offer Niemann a change to show he is clean...."

You are so funny that you make the whole world to smile. Thank you for that. How about the US CH 2022, did Niemann cheated there or not? Give us proves for cheating, please. You do know, as a "scientist", that theory of nature has to be first checked for it´s correctness, before it can be accepted as a law of nature?
Science22 Science22 10/20/2022 10:53
I actually did offer Niemann a change to show he is clean.

A 12 games match against Magnus Carlsen starting on his 20 years birthday June 20 2023. I have sponsored chess tournaments before. In total 1 million US for the winner and for the loser a video from Hans Niemann where he explains how to cheat : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zkWaPNF7P4

Niemann : "And that's why this is the greatest course of all time" . Con man style to the bones.

Only demand for my offer : He has to accept my security systems.
Science22 Science22 10/20/2022 10:43
@micropro : The evidence is there.

The statistical analyzes of Niemann's games show that he has cheated. One can raise the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in the court. Magnus Carlsen will have access to all relevant analyzes from a team of well-trained statisticians and programmers.

Niemann knows very well that it is over. The security systems will be updated, and demands for unannounced visits before during and after a tournament will destroy the possibility of safely receiving help to play. In addition no sponsor wants to be linked with this disgusting type in an international chess tournament.

He has, in record time, gone out with the entire American chess elite and the decent chess world. He believes he is the master of the Universe in tricks protected by a technical system that is invulnerable. Well , it is not.

He has one last card to play, and that is what he is doing now suing Magnus Carlsen. So now there will be a rally in the good old American Lance Armstrong style. For 100 million US, which is obviously the prize money he expected to be paid by playing with his computer programs for the next 50 years.
Science22 Science22 10/20/2022 10:39
@micropro: I am sitting here with an email Hans Niemann wrote to chess.com when he was exposed in cheating big time online. It says that he is well aware that he has cheated, but it was only to test whether the security systems worked. Now that he has established that they work, he would like to be left alone, because he is a highly respected chess player and has no time for this.

As a result of his fraud, a number of chess players lost the opportunity to win prizes.

Hans Niemann represents a type of player that will ruin the game if not stopped. The damage Niemann and his support group have done to chess in record time means that no reasonable person can just take it easy. We need to act to have him removed as fast as possible.

Keep calm and carry on. That is correct. But not here. I don't think you have read the many personal attacks from his aggressive fan club here. The message is always the same, we can't prove anything, nothing works. This wolf pack obviously knows better than the world's best chess players and thorough analyses. And no accusation is too low. You can just surf around and read their hundreds of attacks on posts that criticize Niemann.

What a relief Niemann is now on his way out. The rest will be in court.
micropro micropro 10/20/2022 08:28
@Science22

I agree a investigation should happen.

But sentences as "There is absolutely no doubt that he could not play like this unless consulting af computerprogram. Period." require evidence.

I have my own opinion and I agree with Carlen's. But if you don't have any bit of evidence, you can shout all you want there's been cheating, you don't make things move in the right direction.

Science requires proof just as an investigation. I thought your pseudonym was implying that...

Please, could you be a bit calmer?

Besides, it's not at all relevant when it comes to Engine Correlation.
mc1483 mc1483 10/20/2022 08:15
Problem is, statistics do not say anything about a possibile cheating by HN. The most notorious one, Let's Check showing 10 "perfect" games, has been disproved by Albert Silver's findings. He found 68% correlation in Niemann's game against Carlsen (a game believed to be "perfect"), and a 70% correlation in all the games of Aronian, a player whose overall performance was mediocre at best. We should believe that 68% was enough to defeat Carlsen, while 70% did not prevent Aronian to play so poorly? Obviously the tool cannot be used this way.
Also, the Leite findings are of no use. I checked myself Niemann's expected performance in the last 3 years, and it's fully consistent with the Leite findings. Niemann reached 2700 Elo not because of cheating (something that would have decreased his ACPL) but because of his fast rising: he was always underrated and could gain a lot of points. Of course, cheating could have been the cause of his fast rising, but this is something this statistics cannot know.
The difference between tournaments with/without live broadcasted? Seemed good at first, now has been disproved, and more than once.
Even the Chess.com statistics are just cherrypicking. His GM title at 17? Bad if compared to other youngsters, perfectly normal if compared to other 2700 players (such as Tomashevsky, Wojtaszek and Alekseenko). His fast rising from 11 to 19? Not so fast in any other lifespan. For example at 16 he lose Elo points, while Keymer and Firouzja gained a lot. His two plateaus? Firouzja had two similar ones, Gukesh did not move for more than two years before the current "outburst". And so on.
If Niemann has not been caught at the US championship, he will never be. And after reviewing all the statistics I'm now inclined to think he's not a cheater after all.
Albert Silver Albert Silver 10/20/2022 07:31
@Science22 - "since he only got so low score in your analysis" I don't have any analysis nor did I give any.

As to the alleged discrepancy between broadcast games and not, that link you showed and its data has been checked and challenged:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18vbjfO-xxeGvYAV3QPraunkJttCNQMOHV_UvhPtiHFU/edit#gid=1841397623
Science22 Science22 10/20/2022 07:06
@micropro : World champion Magnus Carlsen has proven over a period of 20 years what an excellent chess player he is.

In the game against Hans Niemann, he played the absolute best he could, and made only two blunders. Yet he was swept off the board by a 19-year-old American who, in game after game not broadcast live, has proven how poor a player he is. Contrary to this, in live transmission he make zero blunders and a long row of great moves ( 9 only wins move against Carlsen in a deeply complicated endgame) .

There is absolutely no doubt that he could not play like this unless consulting af computerprogram. Period.

When Magnus Carlsen says that something is wrong, chess should have so much respect for him that it is taken seriously. But there are so many who do not, and it is deeply shameful.People who do not themselves have the strength to understand why the world champion can see that there is something wrong jump in and teach the world champion about how bad he played. It's downright creepy.

So now what ? Do you really think we will bend our necks to a con man as world champion and pay tribute to his programmers? Goodbye to insanity here.
micropro micropro 10/20/2022 05:52
@Science22
I don't really know how this % has to be interpreted. The only thing I see, using only plain mathematic, is that you can make 28-best-move-engine and two blunders you still get more than 93% and may lose the game due two the blunders.

Besides, 30moves-depth is really not enough (whatever the engine). It's sometimes not even working coming from the well-known website where it's from (and when it's working fine, didn't work the last time I tried to use it).
Playing only e4 as opening and letting run stockfish 15 past 50depth it might gave a difference of 0.1 (true story, was curious to do it).
Science22 Science22 10/20/2022 05:32
@Albert Silver : I kindly asked you a question about where Hans Niemann played wrong in the game against Magnus Carlsen, since he only got so low score in your analysis. It was in another article of yours and you did not answer.

Instead you show up with exactly the same ( in my opinion) incorrect claim about how exactly Hans Niemann played in the game here. It is clear you want to support Niemann. Therefore, I have only one question left that I would very much like you to answer: Have you ever had a collaboration with Hans Niemann?
Science22 Science22 10/20/2022 05:01
@Albert Silver : Why are you doing this ? What is the purpose ?

93,4 % of Niemanns move was within the best moves recommend by Stockfish : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbEiW-60hf0 .

Why do you only count best moves, not even better great moves ? And so on an so no. ...Here Niemann and Carlsen game with Carlsen in parenthesis

1. Great move : 9 ( 3)
2. Best move : 33 (22)
3. Excellent move : 1 (12)
4. Good move : 3 (6 )
5. Book moves : 5 ( 5 )
6. Inaccuracy 3 (5)
7. Mistakes 3 (1)
8. Blunders 0 ( 2)

Niemann makes 3 minor mistakes according to Stockfish in 57 moves. Not something that change the outcome. No blunders.

Please try instead to explain the difference in live transmission and not live from Niemanns game :

https://twitter.com/atl_kings/status/1568656197812891653

USCF Performance rating with no live games : ELO 2404
USCF Performance rating with live games : ELO 2610
USCF Rating change with no live games : ELO - 112
USCF Rating change with live games : ELO 131

That is not a single game. That is a lot of games. Give my your evaluation before FIDE gives it.
Albert Silver Albert Silver 10/20/2022 03:32
37% for Carlsen, 68% for Niemann. Overall, Niemann had the lowest average engine match in Sinquefield with 57%. The highest were Caruana and Aronian with over 70% each.
micropro micropro 10/20/2022 02:23
@with_cheats_you_lose

As much as I agree with you pseudonym, I'm wondering what do you want a screenshot as proof of?
I'm a bit teasing (because I have the same idea as you I think) but I don't think it's the subject of this article (wich I really appreciate by the way).

And I agree with what it's said: "[...] so don't read too much into a few isolated high results". A given engine will and always will be an engine without variation of its behaviour ; a human won't.
with_cheats_you_lose with_cheats_you_lose 10/20/2022 12:46
What is the actual Let's Check engine/game correlation for the game Carlsen - Niemann in the Sinquefield Cup? Can you provide a screenshot as proof? Thank you.
1