The Value of Chess Problems

As I read what bot wrote, and his emphasis on "realistic" chess
problems, I realized what the issue was - or at least I think so.

Chess is a game with a certain level of abstraction. In fact, this
abstraction is often associated with the positive attribute of
"abstract thought."

Chess problems provide a higher level of abstraction than the game
itself. You can interpret that negatively or positively. But I suppose
if the idea that "learning chess teaches you certain abstractions that
will make you better at x, y, and z," then problem chess would be seen
as on an even higher level than the game.

But just as playing chess won't make you a better general, per se, I
understand the contention that chess problem solving or composing
won't make you a better player. Composing a song doesn't make you a
better musician, no matter how good the song.

But I certainly have learned the full power of some of the pieces,
like queen and bishop, by composing helpmates, something very far from
the game of chess - a form where black and white must precisely
cooperate to mate black.

Some have compared chess composition and play as similar to
choreographed martial arts on the stage or screen to the bar brawl.
Like all human comparisons, you can argue back and forth on the merits
of each.

In the end, though, it seems to me that certain players - who already
have ELO envy of seemingly everyone around them - are dismissive of
problems without ever having tried the experience, or try to see why a
series of Umnov maneuvers provide beauty and interest to a problem. I
still find Evans comment about endgame composers being relatively weak
players a sign of snobbery - who cares if they even played the game at
all? Isn't the chess what is important? And what is a "weak player?"
Sigh.....