Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This systematic mapping study clarifies the fragmented landscape of chess research involving LLMs, engines, and human players by identifying key gaps in explicit planning, explanation, and metacognition. The findings highlight that current evaluations often fail to prove true human-AI synergy, urging a shift toward hybrid architectures that integrate grounded reasoning with computational power. For researchers tracking the evolution of strategic AI, this work provides a critical framework for distinguishing between superficial performance gains and genuine cognitive collaboration.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

What Counts as Strategic Reasoning? A Systematic Mapping of Chess Research on Humans, Engines, and Language Models

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2609.18286v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chess has long served as a model domain for studying search, expertise, decision-making, and artificial intelligence. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has renewed the relevance of chess as a controlled environment for investigating strategic reasoning and comparing human and artificial decision-making. We present a systematic mapping study of recent research spanning human players, classical chess engines, neural and reinforcement-learning systems, LLMs, and hybrid approaches. The final map comprises 84 core study families, classified according to agent type, strategic-reasoning stages, and evaluation dimensions. The map reveals a literature strongly concentrated on situation assessment, evaluation, and action selection, while explicit planning, explanation, metacognition, and human--AI collaboration remain less explored. LLM research places particular emphasis on state representation and generalization, whereas grounded explanation appears more frequently in hybrid approaches combining language models with engines, expert knowledge, or other external structures. Two distinctions emerge that the map aggregates rather than resolves: hybrid systems differ in where and when heterogeneous capabilities combine, and evaluations that show improved human performance do not thereby establish human--AI synergy. We propose both as extensions of the mapping framework. We argue that chess provides a useful bridge between cognitive and computational perspectives on strategic reasoning, and identify explicit planning, grounded and faithful explanation, metacognitive calibration, and human--AI complementarity as directions for future research.

Title:What Counts as Strategic Reasoning? A Systematic Mapping of Chess Research on Humans, Engines, and Language Models

Abstract:Chess has long served as a model domain for studying search, expertise, decision-making, and artificial intelligence. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has renewed the relevance of chess as a controlled environment for investigating strategic reasoning and comparing human and artificial decision-making. We present a systematic mapping study of recent research spanning human players, classical chess engines, neural and reinforcement-learning systems, LLMs, and hybrid approaches. The final map comprises 84 core study families, classified according to agent type, strategic-reasoning stages, and evaluation dimensions. The map reveals a literature strongly concentrated on situation assessment, evaluation, and action selection, while explicit planning, explanation, metacognition, and human--AI collaboration remain less explored. LLM research places particular emphasis on state representation and generalization, whereas grounded explanation appears more frequently in hybrid approaches combining language models with engines, expert knowledge, or other external structures. Two distinctions emerge that the map aggregates rather than resolves: hybrid systems differ in where and when heterogeneous capabilities combine, and evaluations that show improved human performance do not thereby establish human--AI synergy. We propose both as extensions of the mapping framework. We argue that chess provides a useful bridge between cognitive and computational perspectives on strategic reasoning, and identify explicit planning, grounded and faithful explanation, metacognitive calibration, and human--AI complementarity as directions for future research.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

I.2.8; I.2.6; I.2.7

arXiv:2609.18286 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.18286v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.18286 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 · 329 words

Related coverage