Score · relative 0–100: 21.5
Rank: —
Status: Provisional
Players generated: 2026-11-07
Match evidence updated: 2026-11-10

Compare in charts View player programs Back to leaderboard

Intensive
Not supported by this model.
Provider default (model decides when to reason)Balanced
21.5 · no rank on its setting leaderboard
Cost per program
$0.0227 · provider-reported
Working programs
4 of 8
API time
3.7 min (observed mean, descriptive)
Not compared: no official rank on its setting leaderboard.
- No alternatives: this setting is not compared (no official rank on its setting leaderboard).
Baseline
Not supported by this model.

Score and cost of every ranked setting

The chart needs JavaScript. The setting cards hold this model's results, and Charts compares every model.

Each setting is placed by its published score and its generation cost per player program, the mean over the game cells including repairs and failed attempts. Higher is better; further left costs less (logarithmic axis, with recorded $0 in its own lane). Filled marks are compared; hollow marks are not (the reason is in the table). The line marks the best value across ranked reasoning settings: no ranked setting with complete cost evidence scores at least as high for the same or less. It includes models without an Overall rank, so it can differ from the line on Charts. Costs mix provider-reported charges and list-price estimates; differences in score points are not tested for significance.

Show the numbers

The table needs JavaScript.

Available settings and grouping

Available settings

Provider default (model decides when to reason)

Checked on 2026-11-07 · Provider documentation

How settings are grouped

Baseline: Not available for this model
Balanced: Provider default (model decides when to reason) — tested and included
Intensive: Not available for this model

Scores by game

Go33.6
Chess1 of 1 failed0.0
Shogi1 of 1 failed0.0
Xiangqi1 of 1 failed0.0
Hex1 of 1 failed0.0
International Draughts42.7
Game of the Amazons52.6
Tumbleweed43.3

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: Provider default (model decides when to reason) (21.5).

Across included settings, the highest game score is Game of the Amazons (52.6); the lowest is 0.0, shared by 4 games. 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: ricursiveai/ripple-65b-preview
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: 131072 (16 of 16 indexed attempts)

Generation evidence

Provider default (model decides when to reason): 4 contributing player programs across 4 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	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	33.6	1319.6	99 / 172 / 293
International Draughts	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	42.7	1316.0	214 / 7 / 333
Game of the Amazons	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	52.6	1466.1	288 / 0 / 290
Tumbleweed	Balanced	1 working of 1 attempt	43.3	1283.5	238 / 0 / 344

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

4 model-code generation failures; 0 provider/infrastructure failures excluded from the generation denominator. Runtime player faults are separate: 0 recorded one-sided faults across contributing program rows. A crash, an illegal move, or a timeout repeated by a later quiet replay, pinned on one program, also counts as that program's loss in its match record; other faults 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

Provider default (model decides when to reason): 13% / 37% / 50% · n 8 No Overall rankIntensive not supportedBaseline not supportedMany programs failed

Generation cost, all settings combined

$0.02average estimated cost per game and reasoning setting

Median: $0.02
Range: $0.0085–$0.04
Provider-reported total: $0.18
Cost data: 8 combinations · 8 runs
Price source: Provider-reported
Price list: boardgame-list-prices-2026-10-09
Average output: 33k tokens
Output range: 12k–60k tokens
Runs with output-token data: 8

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

Ripple 65B Preview

Reasoning settings compared