Torch (chess engine): Fails WP:GNG , WP:NPRODUCT , WP:CRYSTAL .  Everything that's known about it is what chess.com have made known.  And they have every reason to hype it up.  It has not participated in any event or competition organised by a neutral organiser.  It has not been released to the public.  It has not been reviewed by independent reviewers.  We can not have an article on a commercial product simply parrot company claims from start to finish.  Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software .  Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree this is promotional with no independent sources.  Perhaps it would make sense to redirect to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess.com ?  Hmee2 ( talk ) 20:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DISAGREE It was covered by dot esports as I pointed out earlier even if they do not make any new claim about it.  Furthermore, Wikipedia has an article on Stockfish , Dragon and LC0 and it would be extremely strange not to have an article on an engine as if not more stronger than them.  There is also an article about AlphaZero even though it wasn't released to the public or tested by neutral parties and only things known about it was what Google made known.  Lastly, it has been participating at Computer Chess Championship for months now.  (I know thats run by Chess.com).  I think that maybe this article needs to be reworked but it certainly should exist.  Jack234567 ( talk ) 14:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree.  I) There are lots of excellent chess engines like Ethereal, Rubi, Stoofvlees and Igel that, in contrast to Torch, have been around for years without entries on Wikipedia.   II) Chess.com has recently created short-lived engine Mittens_(chess_engine) that got an entry on Wikipedia.  III) All evaluations are strongly biased as only chess.com is currently allowed to evaluate Torch.  Competitors like TCEC don't.  This causes misleading results as for example the second best engine LCZero strongly depends, in contrast to Torch, on the GPU provided.  <Sukram> @Sukram Leela is no longer the "second best engine".  She has been surpassed by Torch, as shown by the last 2 events at Computer Chess Championship.   It would be strange not to have an article on an engine stronger than LC0, given that LC0 itself has such a detailed article.  Furthermore, you mention TCEC, but TCEC has a extremely strong GPU compared to CPU, which inflates Leela's performance.  Lastly, none of the "excellent chess engines" you refer to has reached Lc0's strength unlike Torch.  <Jack234567> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack234567 ( talk • contribs ) 00:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @Jack234567 I) Leela has "such a detailed article" because Leela was unique in and is well known for that it was the first publicly available engine with a deep neural network.  And not because its play strength was close to the very best engine.  As hard as it sounds, on an encyclopedia play strength on its own is usually never sufficient to warrant an entry.  Instead, there are several engine rating lists like the CCRL, CEGT and FGRL which track and document play strength over time.  II) Who defines what is an "extremely strong GPU compared to CPU"?  Surely not the maker of Torch in order to claim its engine was better.  And what would be the objective measurements here?  The price to purchase, the price to rent, the energy consumption, the chip dimension?  <Sukram> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mittens got an entry because of its social media impact.  Torch seems to be very high level and certainly has accomplished engine programmers, but I would be more supportive of the article if Torch can prove itself in independent competitions like TCEC.  Wqwt ( talk ) 23:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to one of the Torch authors in the TCEC chat, there are no plans for Torch to ever participate in TCEC.  (And Mittens was just a short-lived advertising campaign, which while it had lots of media coverage during a few weeks, it's completely forgotten afterwards, then there was Duck chess and then Spell chess. I'm actually surprised that Mittens has a wikipedia entry).  That being said, while I don't think that Torch meets the requirements for a wikipedia article at the current state, I expect that in future it will be part of chess.com offering (online game analisys or something like that) which will make it elegible, i.e. it won't be as short-lived as Mittens.  Mooskagh ( talk ) 09:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Chess.com will indeed offer Torch (and a Torch "lite" version) in their analysis board very soon.  They haven't officially announcend it yet, but some small amount of users have been able to use it for a few days now.  Desha123456 ( talk ) 21:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Please remember to sign your comments.  L iz Read!  Talk!  21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Simply not enough coverage from reliable, independent sources exist to pass WP:GNG .  – Pbrks ( t • c ) 12:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Chess.com as an WP:ATDM .  The Dot Esports article is a RS and enough to justify some content on Wikipedia, just not its own page.  -- Patar knight - chat / contributions 14:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update - Torch is currently being tested by SPCC and CCRL , both of which are independent of chess.com.  Jack234567 ( talk ) 13:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  So far, we have editors arguing for Keep, Merging and Deletion.  We could use a few more editors participating in this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another update - It seems that there is a consensus towards merging into chess.com, I won't argue with that but want to just point out that the engine is now available for free public use .  Jack234567 ( talk ) 03:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Chess.com : Secondary sources seem to be either listings, no sigcov, or forum posts.  There's only one article that could contribute to notability.  Doesn't seem suitable for a standalone article, at least until it achieves more coverage.  ARandomName123 ( talk ) Ping me!  22:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge