The first YINSH World Championship had 20 participants from 6 countries. There were (at least?) 4 women among the
participants. The competition was played under the 7-round Swiss system format. In this session report, I'm reporting only about the games in which I played.

Round 1: Alan Kwan vs. Werner Dupont

It was a tough fight between Werner and I, and I won a solid victory. I successfully used my style of giving my opponent pressure everywhere all over the board to give Werner a hard time.

Round 2: Patrick Van De Perre vs. Alan Kwan

I made a major mistake in the mid-game, which gave Patrick two rows in quick succession. I desperately but successfully blocked his third row, but this left him free in another area where he could have won with his third row easily. But Patrick was too focused on the contested area, that he didn't see it. Eventually I won the struggle for my third row.

Round 3: Alan Kwan vs. Roland Michaelis

Ronald was playing the typical "all corners" style, but it happened that all of my rings were in position to choke him when he made the corner moves. As a result, Ronald was badly blocked, and I quickly made two rows against little resistence. I probably was blocking him too much: at that point all of my rings were pinned in blocking positions, and it took me quite a while to work up to my third row, during which Ronald took the opportunity to make two rows of his. I should have paid more attention to the strategic big picture, and gathered my rings together to quickly finish a third row after completing my second.

Round 4: Michael Reitz vs. Alan Kwan

This was perhaps the most spectacular game in the match. Michael set up his 5 rings in a tight bunch in the center, and I placed 4 of my rings around him and one ring off in a corner. It was clear that I could not really stop Michael from making his rows, so I just made a few delaying moves when appropriate, and focused on making my own rows the rest of the time. So Michael completed his first row before my first, and then he completed his second row before my second. But I was right: with his style, he cound not finish his third row easily (when he had the numerical disadvantage in rings), as long as I did not help him by leaving lots of useless pieces here and there. In a very spectacular showdown, I completed my third row just one move before his.

Michael's style was strong, and could easily beat a player who sets up entirely in the corners, or the average player who feels tempted to try to block his rows. The former type just couldn't stop him from quickly building 3 rows among his cluster of rings, because of one's poor, limited mobility. The latter type's attempt will be futile, and the extra moves both players are making in the process will create extra pieces in the center and give Michael an advantage in the endgame, when those pieces will facilitate quick row-making and obstruct blocking moves. By sitting rings near Michael but moving them only minimally (for delaying moves which gain a few moves' tempo advantage), I bought enough time for myself to work at the edges, so that I could barely edge out a victory in the endgame.

Eventually, Michael won a well-deserved second place in the match.

Round 5: Alan Kwan vs. Romario

Romario was also a corner/edge style player, and I won comfortably by playing a solid game with my usual strategy:
blocking his rows and building my pieces on a cusion of his, and exploiting areas where his rings were absent.

Round 6: Lueder Hampelhorst vs. Alan Kwan

It was a tight game, but I managed to build a slightly stronger position than Lueder. And then in the endgame, Lueder, being too focused about his own goal of winnning in three moves and overlooking that I could win in two, made a mistake which shut out his last chances of fighting back.

Round 7: Alan Kwan vs. Christian Vieser

By this time, I had already won 6 games to others' 4, so my
championship was already a sure thing. Christian was more in the mood of playing the game and enjoying the fun, than to seriously struggle to win a game from me, while I myself could play in a relaxed mood, without worrying that a defeat would be costly. We did enjoy the game: Christian was happy to have completed two rows, while I won a comfortable victory with my morale advantage.


Results of the first YINSH World Championship, 2004:

First place: Alan Kwan (Hong Kong, 7 wins)
Second place: Michael Reitz (5 wins)
Third place: Romario (5 wins)
Fourth place: Klaus Kontny (5 wins)


In this competition, we witnessed the most interesting aspect of YINSH: a strategic (as well as tactical) game with different playing styles. The World Championship was won by a player using the "Chameleon" style, which was unfamiliar and surprising for many players. This style, rather than strictly adhering to a set strategy, is built on a set of general theories, and adapts itself to exploit the weakness of the very style the opponent is playing. Though the theories can be inferred from a very close analysis of the game and its rules, yet to one who does not know and understand the secrets in these theories, but instead plays a more rigid style, the success of the Chameleon style seems like a mystery.

Do not be mistaken: the theories behind the Chameleon style, though justifiable from the rules and layout of the game, and in that sense rather obvious once disclosed, are very complex with many cases and exceptions. Their execution is similarly complex, no less so than trying to practice the lessons one learns in a Chess or Bridge book. YINSH is a very delicate game, and a small difference on the board, such as an extra (seemingly) harmless piece in the middle of nowhere, may call for an entirely different line of play. Thus the success of the Chameleon style this time by no means shows that YINSH is a simple or "solved" game; on the other hand, it proves the very opposite, that YINSH is really at the very pinnacle among modern-day abstract games, being one with very simple rules yet deep strategy and infinite variety. The success of the Chameleon style is due to the fact that its underlying theories are more comprehensive than the partial or biased theories which most other playing styles base themselves on. But adopting the Chameleon style alone does not guarantee success; only with careful and efficient play can one reap the fruits of its strengths.

The time limit for the match was 15 minutes per player (per round). This was actually quite tight, especially for those games which last more moves, but barely enough. (A game of YINSH may last at most 81 moves, so a player may have to make 30 or 40 moves in a long game.) I was lucky because this time limit is most favorable for me: I am not very good at calculating long series of moves, so more time would favor my opponents; while with less time, one playing the Chameleon style would be more prone to making major mistakes, so those playing the corner/edge crawling style would have a better chance. (One of the principle requirements for the Chameleon style theories is that one must make every move carefully, and avoid obvious mistakes.)