- Score · relative 0–100
- 90.7
- Rank
- —
- Status
- Provisional
- Players generated
- 2026-10-21
- Match evidence updated
- 2026-10-22
- Results published
Scores by reasoning setting
Available settings and grouping
Available settings
Checked on 2026-10-20 · Provider documentation
How settings are grouped
- Baseline: Provider default (reasoning controls unavailable) — tested and included
- Balanced: Not available for this model
- Intensive: Not available for this model
Scores by game
What this result shows
Strongest included setting: Provider default (reasoning controls unavailable) (90.7).
Across included settings, the highest game score is Shogi (96.7); the lowest is Chess (79.7). 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
- unbiased/pareto-26.10
- 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 (8 of 8 indexed attempts)
Generation evidence
- Provider default (reasoning controls unavailable): 8 contributing player programs across 8 games
Counts describe contributing programs, not independent replications: repairs and resends are not new independent samples. Independent-generation lineage is not retained; the per-game counts below keep unique code identities separate from admitted generation runs.
| Game | Setting | Unique programs | Admitted generation runs | Program score range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chess | none | 1 | 1 | 79.7–79.7 |
| Game of the Amazons | none | 1 | 1 | 94.5–94.5 |
| Go | none | 1 | 1 | 92.4–92.4 |
| Hex | none | 1 | 1 | 91.8–91.8 |
| International Draughts | none | 1 | 1 | 94.0–94.0 |
| Shogi | none | 1 | 1 | 96.7–96.7 |
| Tumbleweed | none | 1 | 1 | 91.3–91.3 |
| Xiangqi | none | 1 | 1 | 85.2–85.2 |
Program ranges describe the retained competitors on this release scale, not a statistical estimate of a fresh generation.
Failures and budgets
0 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 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
Provider default (reasoning controls unavailable): 100% / 0% / 0% · n 8 No Overall rankIntensive not supportedBalanced not supportedGeneration cost
$0.03average estimated cost per game and reasoning setting
- Median
- $0.03
- Range
- $0.02–$0.05
- Provider-reported total
- $0.24
- Cost data
- 8 combinations · 8 runs
- Price source
- Provider-reported
- Price list
- boardgame-list-prices-2026-10-09
- Average output
- 7.2k tokens
- Output range
- 3.4k–12k 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