Score · relative 0–100: 51.6
Rank: 33
Status: Complete 3/3
Rank change: 0
Players generated: 2026-07-02 – 2026-07-03
Match evidence updated: 2026-10-26
Results published: 2026-10-26

Compare in charts View player programs Back to leaderboard

Scores by reasoning setting

XHigh (Intensive group, tested and included)63.8
Medium (Balanced group, tested and included)48.3
None (Baseline group, tested and included)42.8

Every tested setting is included in the overall score.

Available settings and grouping

Available settings

Thinking field omittedLowMediumHighXHighMax

Checked on 2026-07-21 · Provider documentation

How settings are grouped

Baseline: Thinking field omitted — tested and included
Balanced: Medium — tested and included
Intensive: XHigh — tested and included

Scores by game

Go55.5
Chess53.6
Shogi2 of 3 failed10.4
Xiangqi51.7
Hex40.0
International Draughts70.3
Game of the Amazons65.7
Tumbleweed65.6

Each game counts every generation attempt, a failed one as 0 (“1 of 2 failed” marks games with failed attempts). Scores are relative within each game, across the included settings; they do not compare game difficulty.

What this result shows

Strongest included setting: XHigh (63.8).

Across included settings, the highest game score is International Draughts (70.3); the lowest is Shogi (10.4). Each game counts every generation attempt, a failed one as 0. These are relative scores within each game, not direct comparisons of difficulty.

Match evidence measures these retained programs. It does not establish how a fresh generation will perform. Independent-generation variation is not estimated in this release.

Test protocol and evidence limits

Model identifier: claude-opus-4-8
Provider route (catalog): anthropic
Prompt identity / profile: Not retained in this result set / Not retained in this result set
Prompt version: Not retained in this result set
Generation policy: Generation-quality admission policy (see methodology)
Requested output-token limits: Not retained (0 of 31 indexed attempts)

Generation evidence

Thinking field omitted: 7 contributing player programs across 7 games
Medium: 8 contributing player programs across 8 games
XHigh: 7 contributing player programs across 7 games

Counts describe contributing programs, not independent replications: repairs and resends are not new independent samples. Independent-generation lineage is not retained.

Game	Reasoning group	Programs	Working-program strength	Raw rating	Combined record (W / D / L)
Go	Intensive	1 working of 1 attempt	68.8	1657.9	310 / 68 / 138
Go	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	41.4	1387.1	166 / 75 / 275
Go	Baseline	1 working of 1 attempt	56.4	1530.6	223 / 114 / 179
Chess	Intensive	1 working of 1 attempt	79.2	1743.7	285 / 179 / 16
Chess	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	42.2	1411.2	2 / 385 / 93
Chess	Baseline	1 working of 1 attempt	39.4	1389.7	14 / 335 / 131
Shogi	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	31.2	1261.4	62 / 152 / 280
Xiangqi	Intensive	1 working of 1 attempt	70.5	1648.2	239 / 208 / 51
Xiangqi	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	42.5	1417.1	40 / 327 / 131
Xiangqi	Baseline	1 working of 1 attempt	42.2	1414.7	39 / 326 / 133
Hex	Intensive	1 working of 1 attempt	49.3	1429.2	253 / 0 / 277
Hex	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	48.2	1414.9	247 / 0 / 283
Hex	Baseline	1 working of 1 attempt	22.6	1055.4	114 / 0 / 416
International Draughts	Intensive	1 working of 1 attempt	82.5	1994.7	390 / 29 / 83
International Draughts	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	79.7	1938.5	384 / 9 / 108
International Draughts	Baseline	1 working of 1 attempt	48.9	1402.1	209 / 28 / 265
Game of the Amazons	Intensive	1 working of 1 attempt	76.9	1831.7	403 / 0 / 127
Game of the Amazons	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	68.1	1689.6	353 / 0 / 177
Game of the Amazons	Baseline	1 working of 1 attempt	52.2	1475.2	264 / 0 / 266
Tumbleweed	Intensive	1 working of 1 attempt	83.1	1965.7	436 / 1 / 101
Tumbleweed	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	33.0	1203.2	35 / 258 / 245
Tumbleweed	Baseline	1 working of 1 attempt	80.6	1906.2	421 / 1 / 116

Each row covers all the model's programs in one game and setting. Strength and raw rating are attempt-weighted means; under them, each program's score and the lowest and highest rating describe the programs (not a confidence interval). The combined record adds up their matches: evidence volume, not strength.

Failures and budgets

2 model-code generation failures; 6 provider/infrastructure failures excluded from the generation denominator. Runtime player faults are separate: 1 recorded one-sided faults across contributing program rows. A crash or illegal move pinned on one program also counts as that program's loss in its match record; other faults, such as timeouts, are left out of rating evidence.

Repair/resend outcomes and available costs are included. Exact retry ceilings and execution budgets are not retained in this result set; see the methodology for the public policy. Do not infer a measured setting from a current provider catalog.

Player program results

XHigh: 75% / 13% / 12% · n 8Medium: 100% / 0% / 0% · n 8Thinking field omitted: 88% / 0% / 12% · n 8 All three benchmark settings tested

Generation cost

$0.44average estimated cost per game and reasoning setting

Median: $0.20
Range: $0.13–$1.39
Known cost subtotal (incomplete or unverified charges): $10.46
Cost data: 24 combinations · 24 runs
Price source: Standard list-price estimate
Price list: boardgame-list-prices-2026-10-09
Average output: 15k tokens
Output range: 2.9k–52k tokens
Runs with output-token data: 24

How cost is measured

Comparison cost gives equal weight to each model, game, and reasoning-setting combination. Recorded generation attempts include repairs and resends when cost evidence is available; runtime compute and service operation are excluded. Cost and output-token counts use separate telemetry denominators. A list-price estimate is not actual expenditure; mixed evidence is not a uniform standard-price comparison.

Test protocol

Combines this model's tested reasoning settings
Player-program generation; retained protocol details are under “Test protocol and evidence limits” above

Claude Opus 4.8