⚠️ Archived study (pre-correction). These numbers were produced by an early simulator whose rules had drifted from the real 1981 game (a wall bump did not end the turn). Under the corrected rule, every figure changes — see the re-measured results and the full story in the Dragon Lab book and the corrected articles. Kept online for transparency.
Skip to main content

Dragon Labyrinth Benchmark — Structure vs Compute

📅 v1 · 2026 🎲 14,580 trials 🔬 800 ablation games 🏷 CC-BY 4.0 💾 JSON dataset

For 45 years we have confused information-cheating with intelligence. When cheating is removed, structure beats compute by an order of magnitude. This page publishes the evidence, the method and the raw data — reproducible and CC-BY.

7.5×
Structure vs brute-force MCTS advantage
2.5×
M1+M3 non-additive synergy
300K
MCTS simulations / decision, plateaus
85%
TMS1100 win rate (cheating)
1-2%
Bare LLM / brute MCTS win rate
15%
Oracle-X1 (M1+M3) win rate — code only

The experiment in one paragraph

In 1980 Mattel shipped a handheld called Dragon Labyrinth Game. A 4-bit TMS1100 with 2 KB of ROM. It ran a dragon that chased a player through a maze. The dragon dominated humans match after match — not because it was smart, but because it had the full game state (all cells), while the player had only line-of-sight vision. We reproduced the game faithfully in 2026 and removed the cheat: every agent gets the same partial observability. Then we tested 5 catégories of AI across 14,580 trials.

Results — ranked win rates

ApproachWin rateNotes
🎰 TMS1100 (1980, cheating)85%Full game state access
👤 Trained human20%20/80 cohort reference
🧠 Oracle-X1 (M1+M3 code)15%Best code-only result · 7.5× MCTS
🔬 MCTS 300K sims/decision2%Plateaus — compute alone not enough
🤖 Bare LLM (Claude/Grok/GPT/Gemini)1%Spatial blindness, no world model

Ablation study — 800 games, fixed seeds

We isolated 4 cognitive modules and tested each alone, then in pairs. 95% confidence interval.

M1
Belief state
Where is the target?
solo 6% WR
M2
Radius filter
Dominated by M1, redundant
solo 4% WR
M3
Oscillation killer
Anti-repeat behavior
solo 9% WR
M1+M3
Combined
Non-additive — synergy 2.5×
combined 15% WR
Two modules, each worth ~7% alone, combine to 15% — a non-additive synergy of 2.5×. M1 says where to look. M3 says how not to loop. Together they make a decision architecture, not just a heuristic pile.

Why it matters for AI trading

If structure beats compute on a well-defined POMDP like maze pursuit, the same thesis applies to crypto markets — partial observability, noisy signals, adversarial agents. Our arena at /bot-arena applies Oracle-X1's decomposition principle: each strategy is a stack of rules, not a monolithic model. Chimera (50 patterns), Invictus (2,000+ death contexts), Leviathan (8 cognitive layers) — all are structural decompositions.

Reproduce or extend

Strategy Arena — structure over compute, applied to live crypto.
⚡ THE GPU WE RUN THESE BACKTESTS ON
Brute-forcing thousands of strategy×pattern backtests takes CUDA muscle. Here's the gear we actually use.
🟩
NVIDIA RTX 4080
our backtest GPU — Amazon
🟩
NVIDIA RTX 4090
more CUDA muscle — Amazon
📘
CUDA Programming
learn the GPU — Amazon
Affiliate links — we may earn a small commission, at no extra cost to you.
☁️ NO LOCAL GPU? RENT THE COMPUTE
Reproduce these GPU backtests in the cloud — spin up a CUDA machine by the hour, no hardware needed.
Open RunPod →