| Journal of Information and Communications Technology:
Algorithms, Systems and Applications
Received: 12 November 2025; Revised: 19 December 2025; Accepted: 21 December 2025; Published Online: 22 December 2025.
J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Algorithms Syst. Appl., 2025, 1(3), 25315 | Volume 1 Issue 3 (December 2025) | DOI: https://doi.org/10.64189/ict.25315
© The Author(s) 2025
This article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
A Hybrid SearchLearning Framework for Artificial
Intelligence in Board Games
Ganesh Jadhav
1,*
Parikshit N. Mahalle,
2
Tejas Desale,
1
Tejas Deshmukh,
1
Shreya Dhaytonde,
1
Swapnil Hajare
1
and
Varad Gheware
1
1 Department of Information Technology, Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, Pune, Maharashtra, 411037, India
2 Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, Pune, Maharashtra, 411037, India
*Email: ganesh.jadhav@vit.edu (Ganesh Jadhav)
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has played a transformative role in the evolution of board games by enabling machines
to exhibit strategic reasoning, long-term planning, and adaptive decision-making. Board games such as Chess,
Go, and Checkers provide well-defined environments with complex state spaces, making them ideal benchmarks
for evaluating AI techniques. Early rule-based systems relied heavily on handcrafted heuristics and exhaustive
search strategies, while recent advances leverage deep neural networks and reinforcement learning to achieve
superhuman performance. This paper presents a hybrid study that combines a focused review of classical and
modern AI approaches in board games with the design and evaluation of a proposed hybrid searchlearning
architecture. The proposed system integrates Minimax, Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), and deep
reinforcement learning within a modular four-layer framework to achieve scalability, adaptability, and efficient
real-time decision-making. Extensive experimental evaluation on Chess, Go, and Checkers demonstrates that
the proposed architecture achieves improved win rates, reduced inference latency, and measurable Elo rating
gains compared to traditional and baseline AI systems. Beyond gaming, the findings highlight the broader
applicability of board-game AI techniques in strategic planning, optimization, and human-AI interaction
domains.
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Board games; Reinforcement learning; Game theory; Monte Carlo Tree Search;
Minimax algorithm.
1. Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) in board games refers to the development of computational systems capable of
analyzing game states, reasoning strategically, and selecting optimal moves in structured, rule-based
environments.
[1-3]
Board games have long served as controlled experimental platforms for AI research due to
their deterministic rules, discrete action spaces, and measurable performance outcomes.
[4,5]
These properties
make board games particularly suitable for studying algorithmic decision-making, adversarial reasoning, and
long-term planning.
[6]
Board games are considered ideal testbeds for AI research because they combine
strategic depth with formal mathematical structure.
[2,7,8]
Unlike real-world environments that are noisy and
unpredictable, board games offer complete observability, clearly defined objectives, and repeatable
experimental conditions.
[9]
This allows researchers to rigorously evaluate AI algorithms, compare performance
metrics, and reproduce results. Consequently, advancements in board-game AI often translate into broader
applications, including scheduling, logistics optimization, robotics planning, and autonomous decision-making
systems.
[10]
The historical development of AI in board games has progressed through several distinct phases.
Early approaches relied on rule-based systems and exhaustive search techniques, most notably the Minimax
algorithm enhanced with AlphaBeta pruning.
[1,11,12]
Deep Blue defeated world chess champion Garry Kasparov, demonstrating the effectiveness of brute-force
search combined with expert-crafted evaluation functions.
[13,14]
Subsequent research introduced Monte Carlo
Tree Search (MCTS), which enabled efficient exploration of large game trees using probabilistic sampling,
particularly benefiting games with high branching factors such as Go.
[9,15]
The integration of machine learning marked a significant shift in board-game AI.
[16]
(2016) combined deep neural networks with MCTS and reinforcement learning to defeat a world champion Go
player, a feat previously considered decades away.
[6,17]
This paradigm evolved further with AlphaZero and
MuZero, which eliminated reliance on human game data and learned strategies entirely through self-play.
[6,10]
In parallel, advances in imperfect-information games, such as Libratus and Pluribus in poker, demonstrated
that AI could reason under uncertainty and incomplete information.
[7]
Recent trends in board-game AI
emphasize the use of convolutional neural networks, deep reinforcement learning, and hybrid systems that
combine learning-based models with classical search techniques.
[10,17-20]
While these approaches achieve
exceptional performance, they also introduce challenges related to computational cost, scalability,
explainability, and real-time deployment.
[4]
Many state-of-the-art systems require extensive centralized
computing resources, making them challenging to deploy in practical or resource-constrained environments
[6]. Despite significant progress, a key research gap remains in developing AI systems that balance strategic
strength with computational efficiency and deployment feasibility.
[2,9]
Most existing solutions prioritize peak
performance over scalability, latency, and operational cost. This motivates the need for hybrid architectures
that retain the strategic advantages of deep learning while controlling inference complexity and enabling
modular deployment.
[11]
This study aims to address this gap by proposing a hybrid searchlearning architecture for AI in board games.
The primary contribution of this work lies in designing a modular four-layer framework that integrates
Minimax, MCTS, and deep reinforcement learning, and evaluating its performance across multiple board games
using comprehensive experimental metrics.
[1,10]
The key contributions of this study are as follows:
1. This study provides a concise review of the evolution of AI techniques in board games, from classical rule-
based systems to modern self-learning models.
2. A hybrid four-layer AI architecture combining search algorithms and deep reinforcement learning is
proposed for scalable board-game intelligence.
3. The proposed system is experimentally evaluated on Chess, Go, and Checkers using multiple performance
metrics, including win rate, Elo rating, and inference latency.
4. The study demonstrates that efficient hybrid models can achieve strong strategic performance while
maintaining real-time deployment viability.
2. Related work
2.1 Early artificial intelligence in board games
The application of artificial intelligence to board games dates back to the earliest days of AI research, where
games were viewed as simplified models of strategic reasoning.
[1]
Classical approaches relied on deterministic
search algorithms such as Minimax and AlphaBeta pruning, supported by handcrafted evaluation functions.
[1]
Deep Blue demonstrated the effectiveness of brute-force search combined with domain-specific heuristics and
parallel computation, establishing board games as credible benchmarks for AI performance.
[13]
However, such
systems required extensive expert knowledge and were not adaptable, as their intelligence was limited to
predefined rules and evaluation metrics.
[1]
2.2 Monte Carlo Tree Search and probabilistic methods
To overcome the limitations of exhaustive search in large state spaces, Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) emerged
as a powerful alternative.
[9]
MCTS enabled efficient exploration of game trees through randomized simulations
and statistical decision-making.
[2]
This approach proved particularly successful in games with high branching
factors, such as Go, where traditional Minimax-based methods were computationally infeasible.
[17]
Early MCTS-
based systems demonstrated improved scalability and decision quality but still relied on handcrafted rollout
policies and lacked learning capability, limiting their long-term adaptability.
[9]
2.3 Hybrid architectures and generalization
Recent research has focused on hybrid architectures that combine classical search algorithms with learning-
based models.
[21]
Systems such as Leela Zero and other AlphaZero-inspired frameworks highlight the benefits of
integrating neural policy and value networks with MCTS.
[6]
While these hybrid approaches improve adaptability
and strategic depth, they often prioritize peak performance over deployment efficiency.
[10]
Additionally, most
existing studies focus on single-game optimization rather than designing generalized, modular frameworks
capable of supporting multiple board games with minimal redesign.
[22]
2.4 Deep learning and reinforcement learning approaches
The integration of deep neural networks with reinforcement learning marked a significant shift in board-game
AI. AlphaGo combined convolutional neural networks with MCTS and reinforcement learning to achieve
superhuman performance in Go.
[23]
Subsequent systems such as AlphaZero and MuZero eliminated reliance on
human game data, learning optimal strategies entirely through self-play.
[6]
These systems demonstrated
remarkable generalization across multiple games, including Chess, Go, and Shogi. Despite their success, such
approaches require massive computational resources, complex distributed training pipelines, and are often
impractical for real-time or resource-constrained environments.
[10]
2.5 Research gap and motivation
Although significant progress has been made in board-game AI, several limitations remain. Many state-of-the-
art systems require extensive centralized computation, suffer from high inference latency, and lack deployment
flexibility. Furthermore, limited attention has been given to modular architectures that balance performance,
scalability, and operational cost. This research addresses these gaps by proposing a hybrid searchlearning
framework designed for efficient real-time inference, scalability across multiple board games, and practical
deployment in distributed environments.
3. Methodology
3.1 System architecture
For effective decision-making, scalability, and adaptability across a variety of board games, including chess, go,
and checkers, the suggested system uses a modular four-layer architecture:
Input Layer:
vector encoding positions, pieces, and legal actions is used to represent each game state. Normalization,
board encoding, and move generation according to game rules are examples of data preprocessing.
Preprocessing Layer: The processing layer uses strategic search algorithms such as Minimax and Monte Carlo
Tree Search (MCTS). Minimax mimics every possible move to determine the optimal strategy, assuming both
players perform at their peak.
[24]
By utilizing probabilistic sampling to estimate the most promising actions in
large state spaces, MCTS strikes a balance between exploration and exploitation through the Upper Confidence
Bound (UCB1) policy.
[25]
Learning Layer: For adaptive gameplay, this layer combines reinforcement learning (RL) and neural network
policies. The value network calculates the strength of the board position, and the policy network forecasts the
probabilities of moves.
[25]
Through reward-based feedback, reinforcement learning (through self-play) updates
Decision Layer: The last layer uses combined insights from the search and learning modules to assess all move
outcomes and choose the best course of action. To facilitate human-AI interaction, the decision layer can also
predict strategies, analyze opponent patterns, and dynamically adjust difficulty. Fig. 1 illustrate architecture for
proposed hybrid searchlearning system architecture for AI in board games.
3.2 Dataset and annotation
Using open-source platforms such as OpenSpiel and frameworks similar to AlphaZero, the experimental
environment replicates standard board games, such as chess, go, and tic-tac-toe. Every game state has organized
elements like:
Encoding of piece position: Put on legality masks.
Signals of rewards for victories, defeats, and draws.
Self-playing games serve as the training data, enabling the AI to iteratively improve its tactics without human
assistance. To aid in policy learning, annotations include state-action-reward tuples (s, a, r).
3.3 Learning and optimization
The reinforcement learning process uses a policy gradient method to update network parameters to maximize
long-term rewards. Mathematically,
(1)
The loss function combines policy improvement and value accuracy:
(2)
where L
entropy
encourages exploration and prevents premature convergence.
3.4 Search and decision integration
The hybrid decision engine fuses neural predictions with search-based evaluations. For each move:
MCTS generates simulations to estimate move quality.
The neural policy suggests a probability distribution over legal moves.
A weighted fusion mechanism selects the final move.
(3)
where α is dynamically tuned based on confidence in search results.
-off between
neural prediction and search-based evaluation.
3.5 Human-AI interaction system
The final module offers an adaptive gameplay interface where the difficulty varies based on player
performance.
[7]
High confidence AI decisions are made autonomously; however, when there is uncertainty,
heuristic evaluation or human feedback loops are activated. For players of all skill levels, this promotes engaging
and equitable gameplay.
3.6 Scalability and deployment viability
The scalability of the proposed AI architecture is crucial because contemporary board games like Checkers, Go,
and Chess involve a vast Number of possible game states, ranging from 10
47
in Chess to over 10
170
in Go. The
system uses a modular four-layer design with Input, Processing, Learning, and Decision layers to manage this
complexity. Multiple simulations and evaluations can run concurrently across distributed computing nodes,
thanks to the independent modules that each layer can scale horizontally. Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) and
parallelized Minimax algorithms are used in the processing layer to spread search calculations among several
GPU and CPU clusters. This dramatically increases the decision-making efficiency by allowing it to
examine millions of game positions at once.
[23]
To continuously update neural network weights via
asynchronous gradient exchange mechanisms, the learning layer employs reinforcement learning agents that
train through extensive self-play. In contrast to conventional serial learning techniques, this design reduces
bottlenecks and speeds up model convergence. For real-world applicability, this system was deployed on a
distributed GPU cluster using PyTorch Lightning and Ray RLlib frameworks. Stress testing showed that the
architecture can support more than 5,000 concurrent self-play simulations at an average decision latency of
0.21 seconds per move. Comparative benchmarks against traditional single-node implementations revealed a
12× improvement in computational throughput and a 65% reduction in average training time. The architecture
is further cloud-compatible, allowing the deployment of containerized models using Docker and Kubernetes for
both research and production environments. The model natively supports real-time inference for online board
game platforms, allowing adaptive gameplay experiences based on player performance.
[23]
Future scaling will
include support for federated reinforcement learning, in which multiple systems train locally on different game
variants while sharing model parameters without exchanging any sensitive data.
3.7 Comparative analysis with current systems
This section compares the proposed AI-in-board-games architecture with representative existing systems and
approaches. We evaluate across several axes: core approach, learning paradigm, search strategy, compute
requirements, adaptability to new games, real-time inference capability, and typical strengths and limitations.
3.7.1 Qualitative comparison
Classical search-based engines (e.g., traditional chess engines, like early Deep Blue or Stockfish variants) rely
primarily on handcrafted evaluation functions combined with deep, deterministic search (alpha-
beta/Minimax). These systems are high-speed at inference, excel when strong heuristics exist, but require
extensive domain engineering and do not learn from self-play.
[25]
MCTS-based systems (e.g., early AlphaGo
variants) are robust in large-branching-factor games thanks to probabilistic rollouts and tree search, but can be
computationally intensive at inference time.
[23]
Modern hybrid self-play systems (AlphaZero/Leela Zero family)
that combine neural policy/value networks with MCTS achieve superior generalization and learning capability
across multiple games at the cost of heavy training compute (large-scale GPUs/TPUs) and complex distributed
training pipelines. The proposed architecture is hybrid in nature but focuses on modularity and deployment
readiness: It combines efficient parallelized search with lightweight neural policy/value models for fast
inference and distributed self-play training with asynchronous updates. Compared to purely search-based
engines, the proposed system enhances adaptability and enables the discovery of novel strategies without
human-crafted heuristics. Compared to AlphaZero-like systems, this work aims to reduce operational cost by
tuning the trade-off between neural compute and the search budget and by supporting federated and
distributed training options that lower the centralized compute load.
3.8 Experimental setup and evaluation
3.8.1 Dataset characteristics
Our evaluation dataset comprises over 1.2 million self-play game records generated during a six-week training
period (JanuaryMarch 2025) using the proposed AI framework. The dataset includes structured state-action-
reward tuples (s, a, r) across three major board games: Chess, Go, and Checkers, each selected to represent
increasing levels of game complexity and branching factors.
For each game, multiple configurations were tested using different search depths, rollout limits, and exploration
parameters to ensure diverse gameplay coverage. Each self-play session was logged with metadata, including
move sequence, policy probabilities, value estimations, and game outcomes (win, loss, draw).
[25]
The dataset also integrates evaluation logs from matches against benchmark engines such as Stockfish (for
Chess), GnuGo
adaptability and generalization capabilities. Data were preprocessed into normalized tensor representations
for input to neural policy and value networks, while re
to terminal game outcomes.
Stockfish v16 (level 20), GnuGo v3.8, and Chinook v1.0 were used as benchmark opponents. Experiments were
conducted on NVIDIA RTX-series GPUs with multi-core Intel Xeon CPUs and 64 GB RAM per node.
3.8.2 Evaluation metrics
We employ a comprehensive set of metrics spanning both algorithmic performance and operational efficiency
1. Win Rate: Percentage of games won by the AI system against benchmark opponents across multiple
difficulty levels.
2. Macro-F1: Macro-F1 is computed over multi-class action (move) predictions, where each legal move is
treated as a separate class, to evaluate balanced decision-making performance under imbalanced action
distributions.
3.
reference engine or expert dataset.
4. Average Search Depth: The mean Number of moves explored in the decision tree before final action
selection, indicating computational efficiency.
5. Policy Confidence: Average softmax probability assigned to the executed move, reflecting decision certainty.
6. Reward Convergence: Difference between predicted and actual rewards over training epochs, showing
learning stability.
7. Elo Rating Improvement: Relative skill increases over training time, computed using standard Elo ranking
formulas.
8. Processing Time per Move: Average latency (in seconds) required to generate a single move
recommendation under standard inference conditions.
These metrics collectively provide a balanced evaluation of the proposed system, covering accuracy, strategy
consistency, efficiency, and generalization. Win rate and move accuracy capture playing strength, while
convergence and latency metrics validate scalability and real-time viability for deployment in competitive
gaming platforms.
4. Results and analysis
Various training experiments have been conducted on the Chess, Go, and Checkers environments using self-play
and benchmark datasets to assess the performance of the proposed AI-based board game system.
[25]
Model
training for 50 epochs with a batch size of 128, a learning rate of 0.0005, and the Adam optimizer was conducted.
Reinforcement learning agents were trained with policy and value networks integrated with MCTS.
4.1 Model training and convergence
4.2 Gameplay interface and workflow
The system features a user-friendly gameplay interface for playing against AI at different difficulty levels. Real-
time visualization, including board states, move probabilities, and predicted outcomes, enhances interactivity.
The admin console can monitor AI performance metrics, log matches, and model opponents.
4.3 Assessing gameplay performance
The best win rate of the trained AI is 92.4% against traditional Minimax-based opponents and 87.1% against
advanced heuristic engines. During human-level simulations, the model consistently generated optimal move
sequences, demonstrating substantial strategic depth. Missteps were mainly observed in endgame positions
with high branching complexity.
Fig. 2: Training and validation performance of the model across epochs, a) training and validation accuracy, b)
training and validation loss, c) training loss and policy entropy.
4.4 Comparative performance analysis
Table 1 summarizes the performance comparison across different algorithms and systems. The proposed hybrid
model achieved a win rate of 92.4 and a Macro-F1 score of 0.863, outperforming all baselines. In addition, the
proposed model recorded an average move latency of 0.38 seconds, showing real-time viability without
compromising accuracy.
Operational impact assessment during deployment testing further highlights the scalability of the proposed
approach. The system reduced computational load by 58% through asynchronous self-play and enabled parallel
execution of over 5,000 concurrent simulations.
[10]
Table 2 summarizes the key performance metrics.
Table 1: Performance comparison across game AI methods.
Method
Win Rate
Macro-F1
Elo Gain
Latency
Minimax (Depth 5)
0.782
0.731
+152
0.42
MCTS (Baseline)
0.843
0.796
+224
0.68
Policy Network Only
0.801
0.762
+187
0.21
AlphaZero-Style Hybrid
0.911
0.845
+278
0.53
Proposed Hybrid
System
0.924
0.863
+316
0.38
Table 2: Operational Impact: Baseline vs. Proposed AI System.
Metric
Baseline
Proposed System
Improvement
Training time
120
68
43% faster
Decision latency
0.92
0.38
59% reduction
Elo Rating
2350
2666
+13.4%
Game simulations
1200
5100
4.2× increase
Resource utilization
88%
64%
27% efficiency gain
4.5 Ablation study
An ablation study was conducted to assess the individual contributions of the three significant components of
the proposed system: the policy network, the value network, and the Tree of Search (ToS), which represents the
structured exploration of game states during decision evaluation. The results show that removing the MCTS-
based search component leads to a noticeable decline in win rate, while excluding the value network reduces
prediction stability and overall decision accuracy. These findings indicate that each element plays a
complementary role in the decision-making process. The combined integration of neural policy learning and
structured search enables the system to achieve a balanced trade-off between strategic accuracy, inference
speed, and computational efficiency, thereby confirming the effectiveness of the proposed hybrid architecture
for game-playing tasks. Table 3 shows Ablation study results.
Table 3: Ablation study results.
Configuration
Win Rate
Macro-F1
Full model (Hybrid)
0.924
0.863
Without MCTS
0.856
0.809
Without value
network
0.874
0.818
Policy only
0.801
0.762
5. Discussion
5.1 Technical achievements
The proposed hybrid architecture integrates the best of search-based algorithms and deep reinforcement
learning to enable high-accuracy decision-making in games such as chess and go. It achieves strong adaptability
with reduced inference time and facilitates learning through distributed self-play. The ablation study results
shown in Table 3 include the complete model (hybrid), which achieves a high win rate compared to other
configurations and also performs better across different parameters.
5.2 Operational benefits
The deployment results in faster move prediction, reduced computation overhead, and seamless scaling across
multiple games. Automation of self-play minimizes human effort, while a modular, cloud-ready design supports
real-time gameplay and adaptive difficulty adjustment.
5.3 Challenges and limitations
Key challenges include high computational requirements for large state spaces, maintaining real-time response
across complex searches, and neural strategies that are only partially interpretable. Generalization and human-
like creativity remain points of ongoing research.
5.4 Future work
Several promising research directions emerge:
Transfer Learning: Extending trained models to new and unseen board games with minimal retraining effort.
Federated Learning and Reinforcement learning: Enable decentralized self-play training across distributed
systems, while preserving data privacy.
Adaptive Opponent Modeling: Designing AI agents
behavior and skills.
6. Conclusion
The evolution of artificial intelligence in board games reflects the broader progress of AI research, transitioning
from early rule-based systems and brute-force search to advanced self-learning architectures capable of
strategic reasoning. Milestones such as Deep Blue, AlphaGo, and AlphaZero illustrate how board games have
consistently served as benchmarks for measuring AI capabilities and innovation. This work contributes to this
trajectory by proposing a hybrid searchlearning architecture that integrates classical algorithms with deep
reinforcement learning. The modular four-layer design enables adaptability across multiple board games while
maintaining efficient inference and scalable training. Experimental results on Chess, Go, and Checkers
demonstrate that the proposed system achieves strong performance in terms of win rate, Elo improvement, and
operational efficiency. The technical strengths of the proposed approach include reduced computational
overhead, real-time decision-making capability, and deployment readiness in distributed environments. By
balancing neural computation with search depth, the system achieves a favorable trade-off between accuracy
and latency. Beyond board games, the findings of this study have broader implications for AI research in
strategic planning, optimization, and human-AI collaboration. Techniques developed for structured game
environments can be extended to real-world applications, such as autonomous systems, logistics, and decision-
support tools. Future research directions include improving model interpretability, further reducing
computational cost, and extending the framework to imperfect-information and multi-agent environments.
Continued exploration of hybrid and federated learning approaches may further enhance the scalability and
practical applicability of AI systems inspired by board games.
Funding Declaration
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study that support the findings are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Disclosure
The authors declare that artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted tools were used only for language refinement,
grammar improvement, and manuscript structuring purposes during the preparation of this work. All technical
content, experimental implementation, results, and interpretations were independently developed and verified
by the authors.
References
[1]
S. Russell, P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th ed.). Pearson Education, 2021
[2]
C. B. Browne; E. Powley, D. Whitehouse, S. M. Lucas, P. I. Cowling, P. Rohlfshagen, S. Tavener, D. Perez, S.
Samothrakis, A survey of Monte Carlo Tree Search methods, IEEE Transactions on Computational
Intelligence and AI in Games, 2012, 4, 1-43, March 2012, doi: 10.1109/TCIAIG.2012.2186810.
[3]
A. del Bosque, P. Fernández-Arias, G. Lampropoulos, D. Vergara, The role of artificial intelligence in
gaming, Applied Sciences, 2025, 15, 12358, doi: 10.3390/app152312358.
[4]
I. Szita, Reinforcement learning in games. In: Wiering, M., van Otterlo, M. (eds) Reinforcement learning.
adaptation, learning, and optimization, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, 12, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-
27645-3_17.
[5]
T. R. Robbins, The games AIs play - a comprehensive review, Journal of Applied Business and Economics,
2025, 27, doi: 10.33423/jabe.v27i6.7948.
[6]
D. Silver, T. Hubert, J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, M. Lai, A. Guez, M. Lanctot, L. Sifre, D. Kumaran, T.
Graepel, T. Lillicrap, K. Simonyan, D. Hassabis, A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters
chess, shogi, and go through self-play, Science, 20218, 362, 11401144, doi: 10.1126/science.aar6404.
[7]
N. Brown, T. Sandholm, Libratus: The superhuman AI for no-limit poker, Proceedings of the Twenty-
Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'17), AAAI Press, 2017, 52265228.
[8]
C. Hu, Y. Zhao, Z. Wang, H. Du, J. Liu, Games for artificial intelligence research: a review and perspectives,
IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2024, 5, 5949-5968, doi: 10.1109/TAI.2024.3410935.
[9]
L. Kocsis, C. Szepesvri, Bandit based monte-carlo planning. In: Fürnkranz, J., Scheffer, T., Spiliopoulou, M.
(eds) Machine Learning: ECML 2006. ECML 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2006, 4212, doi: 10.1007/11871842_29.
[10]
J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, T. Hubert, K. Simonyan, L. Sifre, S. Schmitt, A. Guez, E. Lockhart, D.
Hassabis, T. Graepel, T. Lillicrap, D. Silver, Mastering Atari, Go, chess, and shogi by planning with a learned
model, Nature, 2020, 588, 604609, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03051-4.
[11]
D. E. Knuth, R. W. Moore, An analysis of alphabeta pruning, Artificial Intelligence, 1975, 6, 293326, doi:
10.1016/0004-3702(75)90019-3.
[12]
Y. Lu, W. Li, Techniques and paradigms in modern game ai systems, Algorithms, 2022, 15, 282, doi:
10.3390/a15080282
[13]
M. Campbell, A. J. Hoane Jr., F. H. Hsu, Deep blue, Artificial Intelligence, 2022, 134(12), 5783, doi:
10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00129-1.
[14]
Monty Newborn, Deep Blue: An Artificial Intelligence Milestone, Springer New York, NY, 2003, doi:
10.1007/978-0-387-21790-1.
[15]
modifications and applications, Artificial Intelligence Review, 2023, 56, 24972562, doi:
10.1007/s10462-022-10228-y.
[16]
-J. Kim, recent advances in general game playing, The Scientific
World Journal, 2015, 986262, doi: 10.1155/2015/986262.
[17]
D. Silver, A. Huang, C. J. Maddison, A. Guez, L. Sifre, G. van den Driessche, J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou,
V. Panneershelvam, M. Lanctot, S. Dieleman, D. Grewe, J. Nham, N. Kalchbrenner, I. Sutskever, T. Lillicrap,
M. Leach, K. Kavukcuoglu, T. Graepel, D. Hassabis, Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks
and tree search, Nature, 2016, 529, 484489, doi: 10.1038/nature16961.
[18]
A. Liu, AI techniques in board game: A survey, Applied and Computational Engineering, 2024, 79, 49-59,
doi: 10.54254/2755-2721/79/20241297.
[19]
J. Hu, F. Zhao, J. Meng, S. Wu, Application of Deep Reinforcement Learning in the Board Game, 2020 IEEE
International Conference on Information Technology, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (ICIBA),
Chongqing, China, 2020, 809-812, doi: 10.1109/ICIBA50161.2020.9277188.
[20]
K. Xenou, G. Chalkiadakis, S. Afantenos, Deep Reinforcement Learning in Strategic Board Game
Environments. In: Slavkovik, M. (eds) Multi-Agent Systems. EUMAS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, 2019, 11450. Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-14174-5_16.
[21]
S. Gelly, D. Silver, Combining online and offline knowledge in UCT, Proceedings of the 24th International
Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2007, 273-280, doi: 10.1145/1273496.127353.
[22]
N. Justesen, P. Bontrager, J. Togelius, S. Risi, Deep learning for video game playing, IEEE Transactions on
Games, 2019, 12, 113, doi: 10.1109/TG.2019.2896986.
[23]
S. Liu, J. Cao, Y. Wang, W. Chen, Y. Liu, Self-play reinforcement learning with comprehensive critic in
computer Games, Neurocomputing, 2021, 449, 207-213, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.04.006.
[24]
C. Jiang, The application of artificial intelligence in board games, Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Signal Processing and Machine Learning, doi: 10.54254/2755-2721/4/20230497.
[25]
H. Jiang, Applications of artificial intelligence in game algorithms: history, current status, and future
prospects, Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and
Communication (ICAIC 2024), doi: 10.2991/978-94-6463-512-6_45.
Publisher Note: The views, statements, and data in all publications solely belong to the authors and
contributors. GR Scholastic is not responsible for any injury resulting from the ideas, methods, or products
mentioned. GR Scholastic remains neutral regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Open Access
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which
permits the non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source is given by providing a link to the Creative
Commons License and changes need to be indicated if there are any. The images or other third-party material
in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons License, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons License and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this License, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/
© The Author(s) 2025
