does it really help to solve difficult problems? have very strong players cracked their head off for 30 minutes over problems they can't solve?
I've been working with CT-Art for a long time, and the late-40 difficulty questions seem ridiculously difficult to me.
here's the last one I've seen a few minutes ago which made me frustrated:
black to move.
do you see it? it's ...Bf2!, which is the only move to get the queen into the defense. this seems at least logical. however, the continuation which CT-Art gives is:
1...Bf2 2.Rxf2 Qd8! 3.bxc3 Rf8! 4.Qxf8+ Qxf8 5.Rxf8+ Kxf8 -+
from Hennings- Savon, Erebro 1966.
my point is, both the the GM who has developed CT-Art and the GM who actually played this sequence is wrong. 2...Qd8"!" is actually losing to 3.Qf7+!
believe me, this problem at least looks logical. many of the problems at 40 difficulty are so off the hook that when I give up and look up the solution, I cannot even say "aah!, that's the move!".
summary: I'm spending so much time on these, and don't think that difficult problems help me much. and I don't seem to improve at solving them. I just get more and more frustrated, and feel like losing more and more time. should I keep trying, is it really necessary to study so difficult problems until you begin hitting the screen with your head? or should I stick to 30 difficulty problems -which are fairly difficult, too- forever?