News: 0186008280

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

AI Has Finally Learned To Play Stratego (arstechnica.com)

(Friday October 02, 2026 @11:30PM (BeauHD) from the tough-challenges dept.)


Researchers from Carnegie Mellon, MIT, NYU, and Stanford have built an AI called Ataraxos that finally cracked Stratego, [1]beating four-time world champion Pim Niemeijer 15 games to one with four draws . Its key advantage was a second neural network that estimates the identities of hidden enemy pieces, letting the system search plausible game states rather than brute-force a massive hidden-information space. Ars Technica reports:

> Just like [DeepMind's DeepNash, [2]introduced in 2022], Ataraxos learned by playing against itself -- 163 million games in total. In these self-play sessions, moves that led to wins were reinforced and played more often in future matches, while moves that led to losses were played less, which was the same simple training idea. The difference was in how much Ataraxos adjusted after each game, because hidden information tends to send self-play learning algorithms around in circles. The team addressed this by making big, bold changes in strategy early in training and small, careful ones later.

>

> The even bigger innovation was something DeepNash never had: thinking ahead before each move. AIs like AlphaGo refine their general strategy with a search just before acting. DeepMind couldn't make that work in Stratego because the search space was too large, leaving it an open question whether it was worth trying. "This is one of the things that we did figure out how to do," Farina said. The solution was a second neural network, a belief model, trained to guess the opponent's hidden pieces based on how they had been moving. This way, instead of iterating through every possible arrangement, Ataraxos samples plausible ones, plays out candidate moves in each, and picks based on how they turned out. And it shows in its playstyle.

>

> [...] DeepNash was trained for two to three months on 1,024 of Google's specialized chips, a run the Ataraxos team estimates would cost $3 million to $4.5 million at 2025 prices. Ataraxos, in contrast, needed 16 GPUs for a week, plus an additional four GPUs for four days to train the belief model. Farina and lead author Samuel Sokota achieved this efficiency by writing a simulator that runs millions of moves per second on graphics cards. "At the scale that we are in academia, we don't really have access to an entire field of GPUs," Farina said. The algorithm also learned far faster -- it played about 34 times fewer games than DeepNash, and still ended up much stronger.

The findings have been [3]published in the journal Nature .



[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/10/ai-finally-beat-the-best-stratego-player-in-history-and-did-it-on-a-budget/

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.15378

[3] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-11036-y



Fascinating... (Score:2)

by ffkom ( 3519199 )

This is the first time I saw "Stratego" mentioned for 40 years or so... never knew this game received attention among those aged above 12 or so. I can vaguely remember playing it a few times in childhood... are there specific countries where this is popular among adults?

Re: (Score:2)

by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 )

Same here. And I probably expended a lot less energy learning how to play it than AI did. But I was certainly not world champion level. I might be able to beat my cousin once in a while...

Re: (Score:3)

by Pollux ( 102520 )

I own a Stratego board and play it regularly with my son. We also play it with close family from time to time. It's one of my favorite games. It allows for the right balance of strategy, skill, and adaptation, with just the right amount of luck mixed in. Additionally, even as one may be on the verge of losing, there still exist opportunities to win the game. And because arrangement of pieces can be different every game, and because your pieces are largely unknown to the other player until an attack is

Re: (Score:2)

by Retired Chemist ( 5039029 )

Agreed. An AI developed specifically to play a particular obscure game (even if a very complicated one) seems both highly limited and dubiously useful.

Re: (Score:2)

by dsgrntlxmply ( 610492 )

"The team addressed this by making big, bold changes in strategy early in training and small, careful ones later" is interesting, because it sounds similar to simulated annealing. I wonder if they use a scalar "temperature" function, or something with more dimensions.

Re: (Score:2)

by larryjoe ( 135075 )

> Agreed. An AI developed specifically to play a particular obscure game (even if a very complicated one) seems both highly limited and dubiously useful.

There are many esoteric "games" that are highly useful for specific arenas. Stratego itself may not be that practical, but the ability to train an AI to master an arbitrary game is extremely useful.

"Diplomacy"? (Score:2)

by schweini ( 607711 )

I would LOVE to know how AI would fare with the classic board game "Diplomacy"!

For the ones that don't know it - it's a bit like "Risk", but there is no luck anywhere involved. Between each turn, all the players engage in e.g. 15 minutes of "Diplomacy" and literally anything is allowed (except moving the pieces). You can negotiate alliances, bribe and blackmail people, whatever. Many friendships have been lost to this game, because sooner or later you will have to backstab allies and betray friends.

It's g

Re: (Score:2)

by schweini ( 607711 )

Turns out, making AI's play Diplomacy agains each other has been done quite often already! But I would like humans to play against the popular AIs.

Headline and article disagree (Score:2)

by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 )

The headline makes it sounds like the AI has just managed to play the game. But that's not what TFS and TFA are talking about. This is about the system beating the best human player at the game. In the meantime, in a very different game direction, there's a new Starcraft AI which learned the game playing against itself (similar to how AlphaZero self-trained) and is apparently beating almost all the humans even as it does some really weird stuff, some of which looks decidedly suboptimal [1]https://relog.gg/razn [relog.gg]

[1] https://relog.gg/razno/vesti/AI-Bot-Pluto-Invades-StarCraft-Ladder-and-Defeats-Professional-Players/1695?lang=2

Re: (Score:2)

by phantomfive ( 622387 )

It's not hard to make a computer that is unbeatable in Starcraft, because the computer can click perfectly every time. According to your link:

> the unauthorized version of Pluto was additionally modified to use a maphack ...During some games, Pluto reached several thousand actions per minute... the bot used its micro to surround and neutralize Mutalisks... the bot simultaneously fought in multiple areas of the map, precisely micro-managed its units

So yeah, that kind of clicking (and maybe perfect information, or maybe not) gives the computer a massive advantage, it doesn't even need a neural network to win.

Re: (Score:2)

by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 )

Yes, but the authorized version of Pluto had extremely high performance without those elements.

Re: (Score:2)

by phantomfive ( 622387 )

It still has perfect clicks every time.

Re: (Score:2)

by east coast ( 590680 )

learned the game playing against itself

So did Joshua/WOPR and that was over 40 years ago. Stephen Falken was a fucking visionary and a genius!

They tried teaching it Risk (Score:2)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

But after 10 million compute hours it's still setting up the board.

ukraine weak is really tripping it up (Score:2)

by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 )

ukraine weak is really tripping it up

WOPR: Shall we play a game? (Score:2)

by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

Nope!

+++ATH0

You will be married within a year.