- Score · relative 0–100
- 58.3
- Rank
- 19
- Status
- Partial 3/3
- Players generated
- 2026-10-20
- Match evidence updated
- 2026-10-24
- Results published
Why this result is partial: some games cannot be scored: their only generation attempts failed because of the test harness or the provider and cannot currently be repeated. The rank uses the available reasoning-setting results.
Scores by reasoning setting
Available settings and grouping
Available settings
Checked on 2026-10-20 · Provider documentation
How settings are grouped
- Baseline: Low — tested and included
- Balanced: Medium — tested and included
- Intensive: XHigh — tested and included
Scores by game
What this result shows
Strongest included setting: XHigh (63.6).
Across included settings, the highest game score is Tumbleweed (78.3); the lowest is Xiangqi (44.5). 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
- meta/muse-spark-open
- Provider route (catalog)
- openrouter
- 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
- 943718 (27 of 27 indexed attempts)
Generation evidence
- Low: 8 contributing player programs across 8 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 | 92.3 | 2048.2 | 471 / 0 / 45 |
| Go | Balanced | 1 working of 1 attempt | 51.7 | 1485.5 | 193 / 126 / 197 |
| Go | Baseline | 1 working of 1 attempt | 64.7 | 1614.4 | 286 / 74 / 156 |
| Chess | Balanced | 1 working of 1 attempt | 44.4 | 1428.4 | 25 / 360 / 95 |
| Chess | Baseline | 1 working of 1 attempt | 45.6 | 1437.5 | 36 / 348 / 95 |
| Shogi | Intensive | 1 working of 1 attempt | 67.7 | 1599.6 | 287 / 59 / 148 |
| Shogi | Balanced | 1 working of 1 attempt | 33.7 | 1284.2 | 82 / 135 / 277 |
| Shogi | Baseline | 1 working of 1 attempt | 57.1 | 1491.8 | 211 / 103 / 180 |
| Xiangqi | Intensive | 1 working of 1 attempt | 39.4 | 1393.1 | 55 / 267 / 176 |
| Xiangqi | Balanced | 1 working of 1 attempt | 47.3 | 1454.1 | 64 / 326 / 108 |
| Xiangqi | Baseline | 1 working of 1 attempt | 46.7 | 1449.4 | 81 / 286 / 131 |
| Hex | Intensive | 1 working of 1 attempt | 40.7 | 1320.4 | 208 / 0 / 322 |
| Hex | Balanced | 1 working of 1 attempt | 57.6 | 1532.8 | 296 / 0 / 234 |
| Hex | Baseline | 1 working of 1 attempt | 58.3 | 1542.7 | 300 / 0 / 230 |
| International Draughts | Intensive | 1 working of 1 attempt | 50.0 | 1420.0 | 220 / 18 / 264 |
| International Draughts | Balanced | 1 working of 1 attempt | 77.6 | 1897.1 | 365 / 24 / 112 |
| International Draughts | Baseline | 1 working of 1 attempt | 61.5 | 1603.5 | 288 / 3 / 211 |
| Game of the Amazons | Intensive | 1 working of 1 attempt | 74.3 | 1785.9 | 388 / 0 / 142 |
| Game of the Amazons | Balanced | 1 working of 1 attempt | 57.5 | 1542.6 | 293 / 0 / 237 |
| Game of the Amazons | Baseline | 1 working of 1 attempt | 32.7 | 1229.6 | 160 / 0 / 370 |
| Tumbleweed | Intensive | 1 working of 1 attempt | 81.0 | 1915.9 | 424 / 0 / 114 |
| Tumbleweed | Balanced | 1 working of 1 attempt | 70.1 | 1688.7 | 360 / 0 / 178 |
| Tumbleweed | Baseline | 1 working of 1 attempt | 83.6 | 1980.0 | 440 / 0 / 98 |
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
0 model-code generation failures; 1 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: 100% / 0% / 0% · n 7Medium: 75% / 25% / 0% · n 8Low: 88% / 12% / 0% · n 8 All three benchmark settings testedGeneration cost
$0.06average estimated cost per game and reasoning setting
- Median
- $0.03
- Range
- $0.00–$0.16
- Provider-reported total
- $1.39
- Cost data
- 24 combinations · 24 runs
- Price source
- Provider-reported
- Price list
- boardgame-list-prices-2026-10-09
- Average output
- 11k tokens
- Output range
- 2.7k–34k 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