Let's talk about K+Q vs K+R, okay ?

yes !

This is what White is trying to get to....Philidor's Position.

If it's White's move, then White hasta recreate this with Black to move. Think triangulation.

It's actually kinda pretty how it works. 

Big triangle with the queen to e5, a1, a5.

You did it !

Now. There's still some work to do.

Black to move. What is Black's most energetic reply ? I know it won't help, but it makes White find the last part of the forced win....'cuz getting the Rook is still some moves away.

Once you've memorized this position, all Black's moves are equally futile.

okay

Can someone figure it out if I play X.)...Rb1 or Rh7.

Thanx in advance !

The position only has four pieces.  http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en  will tell you anything you want to know about it.

It's not an open book test. You can't have a computer when you're OTB.

Are you trying to learn how to play the position, or are you testing us?

Are you trying to cause friction whilst blindly quoting tablebases and incorrectly claiming that they can teach "anything [we] want to know about [K+R v K+Q]"?

Testing other people can be a great method for learning more about a subject.

No, but the tablebases can definite teach you how to proceed in the Philidor position. The wording of comment #29 seemed to come from someone who wanted to learn.

I kinda know how, but others may enlighten me with a different approach.

What I find so interesting is how so many people do not know this one....from either side, especially how to play for a draw w/ Black !

I once sat down w/ (2) USCF Master players who couldn't ++ me 'cuz they didn't know what to do with White ! We got to (50) moves & I called it off. Then they wanted to know the answer....and I wouldn't tell them ! I'm sure they ran home to Google and figured it out.

I surmise that many-many masters do not know this ++ but they're called masters anywayz.

Quite frankly, I have a lot of respect for any masters who don't know this. They are the intelligent ones, the ones who have prioritised well. Learning silly endgames like this that almost never occur really isn't anything more than a waste of their time.

Learning it like this as a bit of fun however is great, but to think that it will be time usefully spent is probably a little bit naive. Interesting though, I really don't want this to come across as disrespectful to anybody here.

It's true, there seems to be a fairly sharp divide between players who believe the sole value of learning endgames is their possible use in winning a game, and those who appreciate their aesthetic value and enjoy the intellectual challenge they provide. I think it's a mistake to praise either group as "the intelligent ones".

Yes, probably. I like to exaggerate for effect 

To get back to the OP's question, in the Philidor position with Black to move, the king doesn't have a good move and the rook has only four moves that don't lose to an immediate fork or mate. It's not hard to learn the quickest win for White against each of those four moves, most easily by consulting the tablebases.

It's a good idea to practice the Philidor in more than just one of its eight versions (the original position and its reflection across the long diagonal, in each of the four corners).

For those who are interested, here is Larry Evans' 1979 syndicated column on just this topic (below).  It seems GM Walter Browne failed at corralling his silicon opponent's king and picking off the rook at first, but made it just under the wire in his second attempt.

For those interested in learning this ending and wanting more than a wordless database, I suggest John Nunn's Secrets of Pawnless Endings.  Mr. Nunn does his usually thorough job analyzing and explaining it.