aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces XiangqiBench, a rigorous benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model agents in closed-loop Chinese chess scenarios against engine defenders. It exposes critical gaps between static move generation and actual game-winning capability, highlighting issues like execution failure, inconsistency across trials, and the inability to anticipate opponent responses during simulation. For researchers developing autonomous agents, this work underscores that true competence requires measuring verified outcomes rather than just planning accuracy or coverage metrics.
Finding the Move Is Not Winning the Game: XiangqiBench for Closed-Loop Evaluation of LLM Agents
arXiv:2610.02425v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Static evaluations credit a language model for naming the right move, but an agent must carry a plan through to a verified outcome while an opponent responds. We introduce XiangqiBench, an executable benchmark that measures this difference in Chinese chess: starting from 119 tactical endgames with forced mates supported by engine or checks-only search, an LLM agent must deliver checkmate against an engine defender. An interactive REPL interface separates real moves, state queries, and forward simulation, and we record 8,568 multi-turn trajectories from 12 frontier LLMs under two observation protocols. Three signals that look like competence each overstate closed-loop success. (i) The Conversion Gap: models play the stored reference first move in 26.1\% of Sighted trials, yet only 13.9\% of these trials end in a win. (ii) The Consistency Gap: the leading model reaches 38.7\% pass@3 but only 5.9\% pass^3, winning all three trials on 7 of the 46 positions it ever wins. (iii) The Simulation Gap: 32.3\% of accepted simulation calls stop on an illegal move, and in 49.3\% of comparable cases the real defender replies differently from the line the agent simulated; self-authored rollouts check legality but cannot anticipate the opponent. Finding the move is not winning the game: agent evaluations should score closed-loop outcomes and report reliability alongside coverage.
Abstract:Static evaluations credit a language model for naming the right move, but an agent must carry a plan through to a verified outcome while an opponent responds. We introduce XiangqiBench, an executable benchmark that measures this difference in Chinese chess: starting from 119 tactical endgames with forced mates supported by engine or checks-only search, an LLM agent must deliver checkmate against an engine defender. An interactive REPL interface separates real moves, state queries, and forward simulation, and we record 8,568 multi-turn trajectories from 12 frontier LLMs under two observation protocols. Three signals that look like competence each overstate closed-loop success. (i) The Conversion Gap: models play the stored reference first move in 26.1\% of Sighted trials, yet only 13.9\% of these trials end in a win. (ii) The Consistency Gap: the leading model reaches 38.7\% pass@3 but only 5.9\% pass^3, winning all three trials on 7 of the 46 positions it ever wins. (iii) The Simulation Gap: 32.3\% of accepted simulation calls stop on an illegal move, and in 49.3\% of comparable cases the real defender replies differently from the line the agent simulated; self-authored rollouts check legality but cannot anticipate the opponent. Finding the move is not winning the game: agent evaluations should score closed-loop outcomes and report reliability alongside coverage.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.02425 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.02425v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.02425 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 307 words
Related coverage

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

Humanity’s Last Invention — Richard Socher of Recursive
Latent Space · Sep 14, 2026
Measuring Reward-Seeking via Contrastive Belief Updates
LessWrong · Jul 21, 2026