Body: <p>In the <a href="https://lichess.org/analysis/standard/8/8/4k3/4P1r1/2KB4/8/5N2/8_b_-_-_18_91#181" rel="nofollow noreferrer">position shown in the image</a>, Stockfish (via the lichess interface) shows a top line of 91 ... Rxe5 92. Bxe5 Kxe5 93. Kc5 Kf5. 94 Kd5 Kf4 and so on. It reports an evaluation of +0.1 for the line.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/JN8Du.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/JN8Du.png" alt="FEN: 8/8/4k3/4P1r1/2KB4/8/5N2/8 b - - 18 91" /></a></p>
  <p>After Black's 92 ... Kxe5 the position is drawn due to insufficient material. What does the evaluation +0.1 mean in that context? (And why does Stockfish continue the line beyond that point?) Does the evaluation shown result not only from the displayed line but somehow also the alternatives that White has to 92. Bxe5 ? Obviously it's not a question of any practical importance, but it's curious not to see 0.0 when the line is literally a draw.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-06T18:32:48.897Z
Comments.Text: I have Stockfish 15 and 15.1 engines (with NNE) installed on my PC. Both immediately give an evaluation of `+0.0`, with and without tables for finales.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Damien
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-06T18:48:23.610Z
Comments.Text: Disabling NNE doesn't make any difference ...
Comments.UserDisplayName: Damien
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-07T08:24:09.243Z
Comments.Text: @Damien OK thanks! So what does this suggest? A difference between Stockfish 14 and 15? (of what nature?) Or something that involves the way Stockfish is embedded into the lichess interface?
Comments.UserDisplayName: James Martin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-07T13:58:40.550Z
Comments.Text: In your diagram, Lichess indicates a search depth of 22. I made a test on an old PC with SF13 installed. It needed to go up to a depth  of 28 to get an evaluation of 0.0. I also went to Lichess (SF14) and made same analysis again. It did not show the good result at a depth of 55. However, by forcing a deeper analysis, it finally provided the correct 0.0 evaluation. It seems that SF doesn't know the rule of *unsufficient material* and needs a higher depth to be convinced that this is a draw.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Damien
Tags: <engines><stockfish>
Title: Why does Stockfish continue analysis and report a non-zero result for a position with insufficient material?
ThreadText: # Why does Stockfish continue analysis and report a non-zero result for a position with insufficient material?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2023-07-06)
  
  In the [position shown in the image](https://lichess.org/analysis/standard/8/8/4k3/4P1r1/2KB4/8/5N2/8_b_-_-_18_91#181), Stockfish (via the lichess interface) shows a top line of 91 ... Rxe5 92. Bxe5 Kxe5 93. Kc5 Kf5. 94 Kd5 Kf4 and so on. It reports an evaluation of +0.1 for the line.
  
  [![FEN: 8/8/4k3/4P1r1/2KB4/8/5N2/8 b - - 18 91](https://i.sstatic.net/JN8Du.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/JN8Du.png)
  
  After Black's 92 ... Kxe5 the position is drawn due to insufficient material. What does the evaluation +0.1 mean in that context? (And why does Stockfish continue the line beyond that point?) Does the evaluation shown result not only from the displayed line but somehow also the alternatives that White has to 92. Bxe5 ? Obviously it's not a question of any practical importance, but it's curious not to see 0.0 when the line is literally a draw.
  
  **Tags:** engines, stockfish
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I have Stockfish 15 and 15.1 engines (with NNE) installed on my PC. Both immediately give an evaluation of `+0.0`, with and without tables for finales.  
  > **username_1**: Disabling NNE doesn't make any difference ...  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 OK thanks! So what does this suggest? A difference between Stockfish 14 and 15? (of what nature?) Or something that involves the way Stockfish is embedded into the lichess interface?  
  > **username_1**: In your diagram, Lichess indicates a search depth of 22. I made a test on an old PC with SF13 installed. It needed to go up to a depth  of 28 to get an evaluation of 0.0. I also went to Lichess (SF14) and made same analysis again. It did not show the good result at a depth of 55. However, by forcing a deeper analysis, it finally provided the correct 0.0 evaluation. It seems that SF doesn't know the rule of *unsufficient material* and needs a higher depth to be convinced that this is a draw.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  