A Telegram channel chat member asked for clarification regarding the BBS platform's use of fixed coordinates for the starting position, with four initial crosses. I initially intended to respond there, but it ended up being too verbose, so I decided to make it a blog post. The question is interesting and deserves wider attention.
Introductory.
Goal setting. If I just wanted to create another cushy app for a couple dozen veterans who've been playing the same opponents for years, have gotten to know each other inside and out, and are forced to dabble in all sorts of complicating modifications out of boredom, I wouldn't even try to change anything. But that's not what interests me. I want development, an influx of new players, and at least some kind of competitive perspective (without that, there's no point in working on Dots). Therefore, firstly, I can't focus exclusively on "high-level" players, and secondly, I'm forced to think about all sorts of tedious things (formalities, administration, promotion).
Standardization. Even when "Sport Dots" was still active, when we were exploring the prospects of gaining official status, we had to communicate extensively with Go players. Last year, we also spoke with festival organizers (Go-Congress, Intelliada, Larix). The conclusions were clear: the game must have clear rules that leave no room for interpretation and are independent of match conditions. At the same time, a large number of variations is unacceptable. No player (regardless of skill level) or organizer (regardless of experience) should have any doubts about how exactly to play. Open the rules, look at them, and implement them. No additional tricks, no amateurism, and no ambiguity. In any situation: online or on a physical device (festival organizers, for example, fundamentally reject computer versions—play must be possible manually). And the status of a recognized sport is futile without equipment and offline tournaments. The situation in which all sports activity is tied to some online platform and forced to adapt to its algorithms (it is unclear by whom and how they were created) is completely absurd.
Mass participation and training. High-level players are good. But without a large number of mid-level players and a constant influx of newcomers, the normal functioning and development of the community is impossible (see the latest statistical study). They need to be found, retained, and motivated. And taught the basics. Standard openings, tactical and strategic patterns, tasks, as well as textbooks and other related literature (which someone has to write, and, by the way, they should also be comfortable with). Demanding some kind of high-level creative flight from newcomers and mid-level players is strange. First, they need to get the hang of it and stop making mistakes in simple situations. And most will stop there. Only a few will be able and willing to rise to a truly high level. This is normal—mass participation is necessary. And to maintain motivation, they must have a non-zero chance in confrontations with the leaders. If this means slightly stifling the creativity of skilled players with rules, it is a reasonable compromise (that very balance, yes).
Sports principles and formality. This is intangible, but important (again, if we're talking about any serious development, not just hobby groups). The game must clearly fit into generally accepted classifications (dots are a board game with complete information). Plus, equality of arms and the inadmissibility of non-game influence on the outcome. Only in this way can one expect status.
What problems do I see when using four crosses with randomness?
The rules of the game must be written simply and unambiguously. So that anyone, in any situation, can sit down and play strictly according to them. This includes offline play, when there's nothing but paper and pens. There shouldn't be even the slightest reason for doubt, dispute, or manipulation. With single cross, everything is clear: here's a 39x32 board, here are the coordinates of the dots—eight digits. It's impossible to mess things up. Four crosses with random numbers don't meet this requirement. I don't know of a digestible way to write a mathematical algorithm so that the rules are readable by anyone and can be consistently and transparently reproduced by anyone in any situation without the involvement of specially trained people or additional devices. This will be a perpetual problem for mass offline tournaments. We encountered something similar in 2019, when, at the suggestion of Belarusian shogi players, we held a tournament in Minsk. Our official rules, designed to be used with software, can't adequately address the many nuances that arise in live games. For example, software doesn't handle the encirclement—it's impossible to miss or draw incorrectly. But on paper, it can. The rules should address these situations (called fouls), and referees should monitor them. So we simply described everything in the regulations, but ideally, the rules need to be revised. Even if competitions are held online, the rules should be consistent across venues. This ensures that organizers and players aren't dependent on the algorithms of different developers (imposing a single standard everywhere is unlikely, and being tied to a single venue is unacceptable).
An opening foundation, playing patterns, standard positions, typical tactics and strategies are essential, no matter how much one desires a constant sense of novelty. Without them, it's difficult to teach beginners, maintain a sufficient level of competition, create a theoretical foundation and supporting literature, and popularize the game. Why do hundreds of millions of people around the world play chess? Partly because the rules are simple and unambiguous, skills are easily developed through practice, and there are entire libraries of literature. All this allows players to quickly reach a level where, through persistence and experience, they can create problems for much more skilled opponents. It's easier for players to learn, easier for mentors to teach, and easier for analysts and commentators to create an informational environment. And all sorts of Fischer chess come later—the icing on the cake (but the cake is always the first thing). Incidentally, in single cross games, the results of this experience have recently become quite clearly visible. Average players have mastered typical openings, accumulated patterns, and practiced standard tactics, and they can't beat anyone with just their skill level and effort. That's normal. There's nothing wrong with a similar foundation being developed for four crosses. There's plenty of complexity and room for creativity there, even without randomness.
Any randomness, no matter how limited, deprives players of complete information (they don't know the conditions under which they'll begin the game, and they can't plan their opening) and creates the conditions for a breakdown in the balance of power. This is unsportsmanlike and, among other things, creates grounds for conflict and contested results. At the level of our current sandbox, this can be ignored, but if discipline is seriously developed, such issues will arise. Offhand:
— What algorithm determined our starting position? How does it work? I don't understand your code—I'm not a mathematician. How can I know it's truly random and not manipulated by the organizer, the referee, or the opponent?
— I played this opponent with the red pieces and one crossover arrangement, and the blue pieces and another. How can I be sure the color difference compensation was complete?
— But here the cross was clearly inconvenient for me, which led to me losing this key episode. Look: if the cross had been a point to the right, I would have had enough of a move for the combination. I lost because of randomness—I demand a replay!
And, by the way, manipulation is indeed possible. Especially if the randomness is broad enough, like on Zagram. And those who create the algorithms are tacitly aware of this and try to limit and confine the coveted randomness in every possible way, making it arbitrary and emasculating the idea of complete freedom. So why bother if the difference is merely cosmetic?
Regarding the objections raised against the fixed four crosses.
Thanks for your concern, but honestly, it's mostly emotion and abstractions. For example, maxims like "the soul of the game" or "depth" (before the random four-crosses appeared on Zagram, the dots were, presumably, soulless and shallow). What is that? How can it be assessed and measured? Is there any analysis or statistics? The problems I listed above are concrete and clear. But this is simply a matter of taste. Especially since there's nothing concrete to talk about yet. No one has used fixed four-crosses yet. There's no experience, no basis for evaluation. Will there be any noticeable difference at all? And how much of that soul and depth will be lost, if any? Maybe it's worth at least trying and comparing? I suspect there won't be any significant difference. And what there is won't outweigh the problems described above. But we need to test it. Objectively, and not by stretching reality onto the globe of personal preferences. Or take the appeals to high-level players. They say they're all for randomness, and I don't listen to them. But that's not true. Firstly, clearly not everyone is, and secondly, throughout development, I constantly consulted with someone. And not just noobs. Generally speaking, of course, I understand what's being discussed and what specifically is causing the disapproval. But I still want a more substantive and reasoned discussion, based on an understanding of long-term shared goals, and not just personal interests and habits.
Conclusions.
There's no goal to impose anything on anyone out of spite. There are specific problems, and we're trying to address them. This didn't start yesterday—I voiced all of this back when the SD were still alive (and vainly called for discussion). Nothing will be implemented without prior verification—you can see that I haven't touched the official rules yet. There's no categorical ban on randomness for the BBS platform. If we're convinced that it's needed in some form, if competent, well-thought-out, and calculated proposals emerge, we'll consider that option as well. We need to work. And we'd like to work with something tangible, not just emotions.
