On Oct 7, 7:26 am, help bot wrote:
On Oct 7, 5:10 am, SBD wrote:

Perhaps what we've learned here is that some problemists
have very short tempers, equally small minds, and are quick
to "defend" against criticism which is nothing more than an
expression of personal taste. For instance, the reason I
don't like ultra-complex, artificial-looking chess problems
is that solving them (if I ever could) would be of very little
value toward improving my OTB results. Compare and
contrast to solving realistic chess problems, which can be
highly instructive. In fact, the way I see it, the simpler the
position, the more instructive it is likely to be.




Come on bot, you can dish it out but not take it?

Seriously, what is a "realistic" chess problem? Chess is by nature
abstract, or?

You probably never saw the full analysis of such problems because hack
journalists will freely reprint chess problems and their keys, but
rarely spend any time on the analysis required, or even reference the
original source.

There are a whole group of chess problems called
"miniatures" (positions with 7 men or less) and composers still
compose interesting ones today, with whole chess magazines devoted to
this topic alone. Would those be "simple" enough for you? What is
"simple"?

Seriously, all swipes aside, a few hours with one book of chess
problem miniatures (many of which you can find for free in pdf form on
the net) might change your mind about chess composition... if not,
more for me.....