Recognizing Atari and Assessing Sente: Controlled Evaluation Tasks for Language-Based Go Agents

Modern chess engines play far beyond human ability, often choosing moves whose underlying ideas are difficult for humans to understand. We propose an automatic metric for evaluating chess explanations, grounded in chess-engine evaluations. Evaluating state-of-the-art language models using this metric, we find that they perform surprisingly poorly, often relying on surface-level board observations rather than robust, transferable chess concepts. We then introduce BinProp, a training-free method that enables these same models to discover reusable chess concepts and use them to explain moves in natural language. BinProp improves explainability for every model tested, nearly tripling the average score compared with direct prompting. Beyond chess, the same method discovers useful concepts in Go, draughts, and shogi without additional tuning.

Superhuman game engines in domains like chess have made expert-level evaluations easily accessible, yet they communicate what is true without the natural-language explanations that make such expertise educationally useful to experts and non-experts alike. Large language models could, in principle, bridge this gap, but they frequently hallucinate due to limited domain-specific knowledge, and standard reference-based or LLM-as-a-judge frameworks cannot reliably detect these errors. In this work, we present ACT-Eval, an evaluation framework that decomposes chess commentary into atomic claims and routes them to engine-supported tools and expert-annotated gold references to assess factual correctness, conceptual coverage, and move-quality judgment. We release a benchmark of 325 position--move pairs spanning pedagogical, tournament, and critical positions, including 125 positions with expert-verified gold atoms and a five-class error taxonomy. Evaluating leading proprietary and open-weight models, we find that factual hallucinations remain pervasive in chess commentary: GPT-5.4 without tools produces incorrect sub-claims 22.0% of the time, while smaller open-weight models exceed 40%. Although tool augmentation substantially improves factual correctness and move-quality assessment, coverage of expert strategic and tactical ideas remains limited across all models. Human calibration shows that ACT-Eval's factual judgments fall within the observed range of inter-human agreement, while its coverage scores correlate strongly with human assessments of strategic completeness.

The evaluation of LLM reasoning is moving from final-answer accuracy to process-level assessment, yet existing methods still fail to capture how models plan reasoning paths and allocate reasoning resources--that is, how they organize search. Prior process-level methods focus on the coherence and redundancy of chain-of-thought (CoT), and most benchmark tasks have a single objective solvable by static capabilities such as derivation and tool use, leaving search organization unmeasured. We introduce TsuGO, a process-level reasoning benchmark for evaluating Search Efficiency in LLM reasoning through Go life-and-death problems. These problems provide closed and verifiable solution spaces with an inherent adversarial structure, making candidate generation, response checking, branch comparison, and backtracking necessary parts of reasoning rather than incidental trace patterns. By constraining the solution space, TsuGO disentangles domain knowledge from search organization, parses CoT into a structured search tree, and reports Search Efficiency together with Token Efficiency and other diagnostic metrics and visualizations. Experiments show that current LLMs remain far from stable tsumego solving: stronger models succeed by finding the correct candidate earlier and sustaining effort on productive branches, but most models still behave much closer to unguided search algorithms than to neural-guided KataGo. Longer CoT or higher Token Efficiency does not necessarily imply better search. Our results identify search organization and reasoning-resource allocation as missing dimensions in LLM reasoning evaluation.