  In open systems verification, to formally check for reliability, one needs an
appropriate formalism to model the interaction between agents and express the
correctness of the system no matter how the environment behaves. An important
contribution in this context is given by modal logics for strategic ability, in
the setting of multi-agent games, such as ATL, ATL\star, and the like.
Recently, Chatterjee, Henzinger, and Piterman introduced Strategy Logic, which
we denote here by CHP-SL, with the aim of getting a powerful framework for
reasoning explicitly about strategies. CHP-SL is obtained by using first-order
quantifications over strategies and has been investigated in the very specific
setting of two-agents turned-based games, where a non-elementary model-checking
algorithm has been provided. While CHP-SL is a very expressive logic, we claim
that it does not fully capture the strategic aspects of multi-agent systems. In
this paper, we introduce and study a more general strategy logic, denoted SL,
for reasoning about strategies in multi-agent concurrent games. We prove that
SL includes CHP-SL, while maintaining a decidable model-checking problem. In
particular, the algorithm we propose is computationally not harder than the
best one known for CHP-SL. Moreover, we prove that such a problem for SL is
NonElementarySpace-hard. This negative result has spurred us to investigate
here syntactic fragments of SL, strictly subsuming ATL\star, with the hope of
obtaining an elementary model-checking problem. Among the others, we study the
sublogics SL[NG], SL[BG], and SL[1G]. They encompass formulas in a special
prenex normal form having, respectively, nested temporal goals, Boolean
combinations of goals and, a single goal at a time. About these logics, we
prove that the model-checking problem for SL[1G] is 2ExpTime-complete, thus not
harder than the one for ATL\star.
