The queen versus rook endgame is a chess endgame where one player has just a king and queen, and the other player has just a king and rook. As no pawns are on the board, it is a pawnless chess endgame. The side with the queen wins with best play, except for a few rare positions where the queen is immediately lost, or because a draw by stalemate or perpetual check can be forced. [1] However, the win is difficult to achieve in practice, [2] especially against precise defense. [3]
Normally, the winning process involves first winning the rook with the queen via a fork and then checkmating with the king and queen, but forced checkmates with the rook still on the board are possible in some positions or against incorrect defense. With perfect play, in the worst winning position, the queen can win the rook or checkmate within 31 moves. [4]
This endgame was known to be won since the 18th century, but it was then thought to be an easier win than it actually is. Since this endgame only has four pieces, it was fully analysed by computers in 1978, and this revealed subtleties overlooked by earlier writers. [1]
In 1895, Edward Freeborough edited an entire 130-page book of analysis of this endgame, titled The Chess Ending, King & Queen against King & Rook. [4]
Because it has only four pieces, queen versus rook was one of the first endings to be solved by endgame tablebases. [1] Just after the ending was fully analysed by computers, a challenge was issued to Grandmaster Walter Browne in 1978, where Browne would have the queen in a difficult position, defended by Belle using the queen versus rook tablebase. Browne could have won the rook or checkmated in 31 moves with perfect play. After 45 moves, Browne realized that he would not be able to win within 50 moves, according to the fifty-move rule. [5] Browne studied the endgame and, later in the month, played another game from a different starting position. This time, he won by capturing the rook on the 50th move. [1] [6]
Game 1
| Game 2
|
John Nunn's Secrets of Pawnless Endings splits the ending into four phases: [7]
Nunn recommends that the defender try to pass through all four stages, and cautions that prematurely giving up a fourth- or third-rank defense is a common error. [7]
Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht consider breaking the third-rank defense as the first stage, noting that this is the stage where computer analysis showed the greatest difficulties. They also add a final stage, consisting of picking up the rook by a fork after Philidor's position has been achieved. [3] Because of this, a common defensive motif for Black is to put the rook on the same diagonal as White's king to prevent forks. [8]
David Smerdon calls queen versus rook "the most underappreciated endgame in chess", noting that it is often not taught in much detail, despite its commonness. He argues that the reason for its neglect is that the queen usually wins when both players have the same amount of knowledge, but points out that the superior side's task is "extraordinarily difficult" when the inferior side knows the best defensive technique. [9]
The following discussion assumes that White has the queen and Black has the rook. Not all the lines given are optimal according to the tablebase, because sometimes a slightly longer but more systematic win is more intuitive for human players. [10]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
This position is won with either side to move. If White is to move, triangulation with the queen will transfer the move to Black, by 1.Qe5+ (1.Qd5 also works) 1...Ka8 2.Qa1+ Kb8 (2...Ra7?! 3.Qh8#) 3.Qa5, and we are back in the original position with Black to move. [3] Now Black is in zugzwang, and wherever they move their rook, it will be lost to a series of checks culminating in a fork: [3]
Once the rook is lost, the result is a basic checkmate (king and queen against king), which is easily won. [3]
White should not close in further once the Philidor position has been achieved. For 1.Qa6 runs into 1...Rc7+ and White must retreat the king to d6, for 2.Kb6? Rc6+! forces a draw. [11]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
In the last stages of the defense, Black often places their rook on the second rank. White's goal is thus to create Philidor's position, which involves getting their king on the sixth rank. [8] Black's only way of posing some challenge to this is to have their king on the second rank. [8] Black is closest to defeat when their king is forced into the corner. [8]
The diagram to the right illustrates a typical second-rank defense. White will try to drive the enemy king into the corner. [8]
2.Kc6 also theoretically wins just as quickly, but it allows Black to escape into a practically problematic third-rank defense with 2...Re6+. [8]
Now Black has a few options:
If 3...Re1, then 3.Qd6+ Kc8 4.Qa6+ Kb8 5.Qb5+ Kc8 6.Qc4 keeps the rook away from its king, and soon it will be forked: 6...Kc7 7.Qf4+ Kc8 8.Qg4+ Kd8 9.Qh4+. [8]
Likewise 6...Rc1 7.Qe4+ Kc8 8.Kb6 Kd7 9.Qd3+ Kc8 10.Qf5+ Kd8 (10...Kb8 11.Qe5+ Kc8 12.Qe8#) 11.Qg5+ forks. [3]
Philidor's position has been reached. [3]
If 4...Re8, then 5.Qd7+ Kf8 6.Qh7 Re1 7.Qh6+ Kg8 8.Qg5+ Kf7 9.Qf4+ Ke8 10.Qg3 and White wins. [8]
6...Rh7 does not help, because after 7.Qc8+ White will use queen checks to get their queen to f7, forcing ...Kh6, which will lose to Qf6+ followed by Kf5. [8]
7.Qc5+ also works: the motif after 7...Kg8 8.Kd5, with king and queen lining up against the enemy king, is common. There would then follow 8...Rg7 (if 8...Kg7, then 9.Qg5+ Kf8 10.Qh5) 9.Kf6 Kh7 10.Qh1+ Kg8 11.Qh5 and Philidor's position is reached. [8]
The rook is lost. [3]
Diagram 1
| Diagram 2
|
The stronger side must remain alert to stalemating possibilities from the weaker, [12] which are quite common tries for defense. [8] In diagram 1, 1.Qc6+ is actually a mistake delaying mate, because after 1...Kb8, the penetration to the sixth rank with 2.Kb6? falls into 2...Ra6+ and stalemate. Instead 1.Qe5 and 1.Qd4 both win quickly and allow this penetration. [8]
Nunn calls attention to a tactic in diagram 2, noting that it is "not obvious": after 1.Qd8 Kh7, it is good to play 2.Qd4 covering g7, so that after 2...Rg7+ 3.Kf6 Rg6+ 4.Kf7 Black will no longer be able to check. [8]
Generally, moving the rook away from the king loses quickly. The queen plays two roles in breaking down the second-rank defense; it restricts the enemy king's movement and prevents the enemy rook from checking its king from behind. [12] This allows its king to penetrate through to the sixth rank. [8] If the rook is cut off from the king, it is usually better for the queen to stop it from checking, rather than continue its own checking. Thus, if it were Black's move in diagram 2, Nunn recommends responding to 1...Rf1 with 2.Qe5+ Kf7 3.Qe3. [8]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Müller and Lamprecht note that it is very difficult to see the right winning plan here without knowing it beforehand. [3] Nunn concurs, drawing a distinction between breaking down the second-rank defense (which he considers a strong player likely able to calculate over the board), versus breaking down the third-rank defense (where he considers that the winning method must be known beforehand). This is especially so because the defense is easy for Black to hold if White does not know what they are doing; it simply involves keeping the rook on the third rank. [13] It is sufficient to know how to solve two positions: the one diagrammed to the right, and the same one with the rook on a6 instead. [13]
This move, bringing the queen away from a position that looks so dominating, guarantees success. (There are other methods, but all involve some sort of counterintuitive move like this one.) [13] Now there is no safe square for the rook on the third rank, so Black has to move the king. [3]
This is the point, allowing the queen to switch to the other side of the board with tempo. [13]
Black is forced into a second-rank defense, [3] as would also happen after 2...Kc8 3.Kc5 Rb7, or 1...Kc8 2.Kc5 Ra6 3.Qe4 Kc7 4.Qe7+ Kb8 5.Kb5 Ra7. [13]
With the rook on a6 rather than b6, White's task is easier: 1.Kc5 Kc8 2.Qe7 Kb8 3.Kb5 Ra7. [13]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
This is relatively easy to force the defending side out of, resulting in a third-rank or second-rank defense. [14]
It is best to avoid 1.Kd4 Ra1, where Black puts the rook on the same diagonal as White's king and threatens to check from two directions. White would then have to lose time and find several difficult moves: 2.Qf7+ Kd6 3.Qb3 (denying d1 and a4 to the rook) 3...Ke7 4.Qc3 Ra6 5.Qc7+ Kf6 6.Qd8+ and 7.Ke5 will force Black into a third-rank defense. [14]
Now Black has two paths: [14]
White should try to get their king to b4, so that Black's rook must leave the fourth rank. But 3.Kd4 is avoided, because of the diagonal motif with 3...Ra1. [14]
If 3...Ra4, then 4.Qe7+ Kb6 5.Qd6+ Kb5 6.Qd5+ Ka6 7.Qc5 Ra5 8.Qc6+ Ka7 9.Kc4 and attempting a smaller diagonal motif with 9...Ra2 does not help, because 10.Qf6 Ra5 11.Kb4 Ra6 12.Qd4+ and Kb5 will result in a White win. [14] In general, diagonal motifs only work well when the rook is at least three squares away from the White king; otherwise, it is not hard for White to force Black to retreat. [14]
4...Rc6 would retreat into a third-rank defense: 5.Qe7+ Kb6 6.Kd5. [14]
A third-rank defense follows with 6.Qe7+ Kb6 7.Kd5. If instead 5...Rd1+, then 6.Kc5 Rd7 and Black enters a second-rank defense. [14]
This covers the a4 square.
If 2...Kc5, then White can as in line (A) try to get their king to b4 with 3.Qe5+ Kb6 4.Qd6+ Kb7 5.Kd3. [14] If 2...Rc5, then White can force Black into a second-rank defense with 3.Qd8+ Kc6 4.Kd4 Rb5 5.Qc8+ Kb6 6.Kc4 Ka7 7.Qd7+ Rb7 8.Qd4+ Kb8 9.Kc5. [14]
White's plan is to force Black's king to go to the next file to the left, and penetrate with their own king to b4. This will force Black's rook to abandon the fourth rank. [14]
3...Rc5 4.Kd4 transposes to line (A). [14]
Nunn singles this out as "the trickiest moment": it allows a shorter (and less effective) diagonal motif, but this cannot be averted because 4.Kd3 runs into 4...Rb1. White threatens Kc4. [14]
If 4...Rb6, then White forces a second-rank defense with 5.Qe7+ Kc6 6.Kc4 Rb7 7.Qe6+. [14]
Black is forced back into a second-rank defense. There could follow 6.Kc4 Kd8 7.Qg8+ Kd7 8.Kc5 Rc7+ 9.Kd5. [14]
Diagram 1
| Diagram 2
| Diagram 3
|
Discounting the possibilities of immediately winning the queen, there are a few positions where the rook can draw because the poor placement of the enemy pieces permits stalemate-related tactics. [12]
Diagram 1 is a draw, because the rook can give a perpetual check from f7, g7, and h7. [15] The White king cannot cross to the e-file (because the queen would be lost to a pin), and the rook is immune to capture on h7 or g6 (e.g. 1...Rg7+ 2.Kf6 Rg6+! forces a draw) because stalemate would result. [15] Likewise diagram 2 permits a draw by perpetual check from g7 and h7, because the White king cannot cross to the f-file and cannot capture the rook on h6. (It would still be drawn by perpetual check with the queen on f1 through f4, but it is won with the queen on f5 by the plan of getting the White king to h6, which no longer causes stalemate.) [15] Finally, diagram 3 has the defending king immobilised in the corner by the enemy queen a knight's move away, so the rook may give perpetual check along the g-file (being immune on g6) or the first rank. Otherwise the checks will come to an end and the position is lost. [15]
Even grandmasters sometimes fail to properly execute the winning technique, as demonstrated by this 2006 game between Alexander Morozevich and Dmitry Jakovenko. [9]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Notes based on those by David Smerdon. [9]
Black is trying to stop the White king from penetrating using a fourth-rank defense [14] (though the board is rotated 90 degrees here). Here this requires him to move his rook away; such a decision requires calculation, to not fall victim to a series of checks leading to a fork picking up the rook. [9]
After 79...Kb7 80.Ke7!, the rook would have to leave the d-file. [9]
A standard motif, [8] going to the diagonal the White king is on in order to avoid getting forked. [9]
81.Ke7! is much better. [9]
The most tenacious defenses often require moving the rook away from the king in such a way that it will be safe from forks. In this case, Black is safe, because he can either move his king on the dark squares or block checks with his rook. [9]
Reforming a fourth-rank defense. [9] [14]
The fourth-rank defense is broken. [9]
Again the diagonal motif. [9]
The moves that are best at making progress for White are often non-checks. [9]
Forming a second-rank defense. [9]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Now White should play 110.Qe5! Kg1 111.Kg3! Rg2+ 112.Kh3! and the rook is lost. [9]
This check, though natural, does not form part of the winning plan. [9]
111.Qe5 would still have won. This is the decisive mistake. [9]
Stalemate will be forced. [9]
This was a rather accurately executed win by Hannes Stefánsson over Karsten Müller. The notes are based on those by Nunn. [16]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | 8 | ||||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
This wastes four moves. After 74.Qb5+ Kd6 75.Kg5 Re6 76.Kf5 Re7 77.Qb6+ Kd7 78.Kf6 Kc8 79.Qa6+ Rb7 80.Ke6, White is well into breaking down the second-rank defense. [16]
Again wasting three moves. Similarly to the previous note, better would have been to chase Black to the first rank with 77.Qb5+ Kd4 78.Kf5 Re3 79.Qb4+ Kd3 80.Qf4. [16]
White does not always take the fastest win, but he plays quite precisely and logically. [16]
Settling for a third-rank defense. [16]
Black could have held out five moves longer with 82...Kb5; in general, it is better for the defending king to be near an edge than a corner. [16]
Black has been forced into a second-rank defense. [16]
A quicker win is 85.Qa4 Rd7+ 86.Kc6 Rc7+ 87.Kd6 Kb8 88.Qe8+ Rc8 89.Qb5+ Ka7 90.Kd7. [16]
Nunn singles this move out as "excellent". [16]
White reaches Philidor's position. [16]
A quicker win is 93.Qd4+. [16]
The winning procedure when the king and rook are widely separated is quite ad hoc, and the ending of queen versus rook is not generally won on larger boards. Marc Bourzutschky showed that it is generally won on square boards only from 5×5 to 15×15: on a 16×16 board, the defenders can sometimes run away forever. Even on a 12×8 board, the Philidor position is already much more complicated if Black moves the rook the furthest possible distance, though the ending is still a general win in this case. [18]
Diagram 1
| Diagram 2
|
There is a drawing fortress involving a non-rook's pawn on the second rank next to its king and rook. The attacker cannot make progress because their king cannot get behind the pawn. The rook should shuttle back and forth between the squares protected by the pawn, and the king should stay near its pawn. For example, in Diagram 1, White can play 1.Rg3 Ke4 2.Re3+ Kf4 3.Rg3 Qc6+ 4.Kg1 and Black cannot make any progress. (This position would still be a draw even with a Black pawn on g4 or h4.) [3] However, getting the rook to the correct position can pose significant difficulties. [3] If the superior side can block the pawn with their king, and the pawn has not crossed the middle line, then they win. [19] The superior side also has winning chances if their king crosses the sixth rank, even if the inferior side has successfully set up the fortress. [20]
A central or bishop's pawn would lose on the third through fifth ranks, because now the enemy king can get behind the pawn. But the knight's pawn still draws even as far as the fifth rank, [21] because there is no room for the queen on the short side of the pawn. [3] If the pawn reaches the sixth or seventh rank, the drawing chances increase. Diagram 2 is a reciprocal zugzwang: Black to play draws, but White to play loses. (The defender has better chances if his king remains on the lower ranks, which forecloses zugzwang possibilities from the attacker.) [19]
A rook's pawn loses on the second rank, because the rook has only one protected square to use. [22] To win against a rook's pawn on the third rank, it is necessary for the attacking king to advance on the pawn's own file from ahead; [3] if this cannot be achieved, then the defending king cannot be forced out of the corner. The defender should stop the attacking king from penetrating to B7 and B8 (descriptive notation). [22] The defender loses with a rook's pawn on the fourth [3] or fifth rank, because they cannot successfully defend all the squares behind the pawn. [22]
In the case where both rook and queen are supported by pawns, the rook has the best drawing chances if all the pawns are on one side of the board and the rook has a secure outpost. The queen has much higher chances to win if the pawns are on both sides of the board. [3]
In the game of chess, an endgame study, or just study, is a composed position—that is, one that has been made up rather than played in an actual game—presented as a sort of puzzle, in which the aim of the solver is to find the essentially unique way for one side to win or draw, as stipulated, against any moves the other side plays. If the study does not end in the end of the game, then the game's eventual outcome should be obvious, and White can have a selection of many different moves. There is no limit to the number of moves which are allowed to achieve the win; this distinguishes studies from the genre of direct mate problems. Such problems also differ qualitatively from the very common genre of tactical puzzles based around the middlegame, often based on an actual game, where a decisive tactic must be found.
The Lucena position is a position in chess endgame theory where one side has a rook and a pawn and the defender has a rook. Karsten Müller said that it may be the most important position in endgame theory. It is fundamental in the rook and pawn versus rook endgame. If the side with the pawn can reach this type of position, they can forcibly win the game. Most rook and pawn versus rook endgames reach either the Lucena position or the Philidor position if played accurately. The side with the pawn will try to reach the Lucena position to win; the other side will try to reach the Philidor position to draw.
Checkmate is any game position in chess and other chess-like games in which a player's king is in check and there is no possible escape. Checkmating the opponent wins the game.
Triangulation is a tactic used in chess to put one's opponent in zugzwang. Triangulation is also called losing a tempo or losing a move.
The Philidor position is a chess endgame involving a drawing technique for the defending side in the rook and pawn versus rook endgame. This technique is known as the third-rank defense due to the positioning of the defending rook. It was analyzed by François-André Danican Philidor in 1777. Many rook and pawn versus rook endgames reach either the drawn Philidor position or the winning Lucena position. The defending side should try to reach the Philidor position; the attacking side should try to reach the Lucena position. Grandmaster Jesús de la Villa said, "[The Lucena and Philidor positions] are the most important positions in this type of endgame [...] and in endgame theory."
The chess endgame with a king and a pawn versus a king is one of the most important and fundamental endgames, other than the basic checkmates. It is an important endgame for chess players to master, since most other endgames have the potential of reducing to this type of endgame via exchanges of pieces. Players need to be able to determine quickly whether a given position is a win or a draw, and to know the technique for playing it. The crux of this endgame is whether or not the pawn can be promoted, so checkmate can be forced.
In chess, a grotesque is a problem or endgame study which features a particularly unlikely or impossible initial position, especially one in which White fights with a very small force against a much larger black army. Grotesques are generally intended to be humorous.
El Ajedrecista is an automaton built in 1912 by Leonardo Torres Quevedo in Madrid, a pioneering autonomous machine capable of playing chess. As opposed to the human-operated Mechanical Turk and Ajeeb, El Ajedrecista had a true integrated automation built to play chess without human guidance. It played an endgame with three chess pieces, automatically moving a white king and a rook to checkmate the black king moved by a human opponent.
In chess, a fortress is an endgame drawing technique in which the side behind in material sets up a zone of protection that the opponent cannot penetrate. This might involve keeping the enemy king out of one's position, or a safe zone the enemy cannot force one out of. An elementary fortress is a theoretically drawn position with reduced material in which a passive defense will maintain the draw.
In chess, the bishop and knight checkmate is the checkmate of a lone king by an opposing king, bishop, and knight. With the stronger side to move, checkmate can be forced in at most thirty-three moves from almost any starting position. Although this is classified as one of the four basic checkmates, it occurs in practice only approximately once in every 6,000 games.
The rook and pawn versus rook endgame is a fundamentally important, widely studied chess endgame. Precise play is usually required in these positions. With optimal play, some complicated wins require sixty moves to either checkmate, capture the defending rook, or successfully promote the pawn. In some cases, thirty-five moves are required to advance the pawn once.
In chess, opposition is a situation in which two kings are two squares apart on the same rank or file. Since kings cannot move adjacent to each other, each king prevents the other's advance, creating a mutual blockade. In this situation, the player not having to move is said to have the opposition. It is a special type of zugzwang and most often occurs in endgames with only kings and pawns. The side with the move may have to move their king away, potentially allowing the opposing king access to important squares. Taking the opposition is a means to an end, normally to force the opponent's king to move to a weaker position, and is not always the best thing to do.
The chess endgame of a queen versus pawn is usually an easy win for the side with the queen. However, if the pawn has advanced to its seventh rank it has possibilities of reaching a draw, and there are some drawn positions with the pawn on the sixth rank. This endgame arises most often from a race of pawns to promote.
A pawnless chess endgame is a chess endgame in which only a few pieces remain, and no pawns. The basic checkmates are types of pawnless endgames. Endgames without pawns do not occur very often in practice except for the basic checkmates of king and queen versus king, king and rook versus king, and queen versus rook. Other cases that occur occasionally are (1) a rook and minor piece versus a rook and (2) a rook versus a minor piece, especially if the minor piece is a bishop.
In chess, particularly in endgames, a key square is a square such that if a player's king can occupy it, he can force some gain such as the promotion of a pawn or the capture of an opponent's pawn. Key squares are useful mostly in endgames involving only kings and pawns. In the king and pawn versus king endgame, the key squares depend on the position of the pawn and are easy to determine. Some more complex positions have easily determined key squares while other positions have harder-to-determine key squares. Some positions have key squares for both White and Black.
The rook and bishop versus rook endgame is a chess endgame where one player has just a king, a rook, and a bishop, and the other player has just a king and a rook. This combination of material is one of the most common pawnless chess endgames. It is generally a theoretical draw, but the rook and bishop have good winning chances in practice because the defense is difficult. Ulf Andersson won the position twice within a year, once against a grandmaster and once against a candidate master; and grandmaster Keith Arkell has won it 27 times out of 27. In positions that have a forced win, up to 59 moves are required. Tony Kosten has seen the endgame many times in master games, with the stronger side almost always winning. Pal Benko called this the "headache ending." David Howell observed, "Especially below elite grandmaster level, this is one of the hardest endgames to draw."
Johann Baptist Allgaier was a German-Austrian chess master and theoretician. He was also the author of the first chess handbook in German – Neue theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zum Schachspiel.
The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is a chess endgame in which both sides have a queen and one side has a pawn, which one tries to promote. It is very complicated and difficult to play. Cross-checks are often used as a device to win the game by forcing the exchange of queens. It is almost always a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn.
The 14th season of the Top Chess Engine Championship took place between 17 November 2018 and 24 February 2019. Stockfish was the defending champion, having defeated Komodo in the previous season's superfinal.
The 17th season of the Top Chess Engine Championship began on 2 January 2020 and ended on 22 April 2020. TCEC Season 16 3rd-place finisher Leela Chess Zero won the championship, defeating the defending champion Stockfish 52.5-47.5 in the superfinal.