Mike
I tried to post last night when I got back from the course but failed miserably with the technology.
I think your posts pretty well nailed it in terms of what it is, its a modern/American design with American style service levels which is aimed at the mid to high handicapper one play market market. Yes the course is wide open off the tee and I would agree that the fairways are fairly flat. Like wise the putting surface aren't wild but then it is a windy site. Its the green surrounds which I think are the courses principal interest and difficulty.
Everything is very artfully done although I still think it is a bit twee in some of the detail such as the part revetted bunkers in out of way places, the way some of the sleepers were used etc. Overall I had a great golf experience although I wouldn't call it a great course but then I'm sure they weren't trying to meet my idea of what constitutes greatness in a golf course. The course is far too open for my liking. Not that I hated it being open its just that it didin't get me excited by throwing in an occassional diagonal carry or fairway bunker to manouvre round. Basically I thought that it lacked interest off the tee, and that for a lot of average drivers including myself, is where a good bit of fun is to be had.
Yes in theory there are benefits to being on one side of the fairway as opposed to the other however for a lot of the holes I'm not sure it made much difference for a 10 handicapper like me. I would say however that it was easy enough to find your way round. The strokesaver went straight into my bag and didn't get opened until I finished the round and I doubt I was any worse off for that. Very few of the greens or should I say pin positions were so fiendish that it would only be prior knowledge that would save you from disaster, the only one I can think of was the middle left pin position at the 2nd with the drop off behind.
The only other slight bum note was I thought that on a lot of the landward holes the desire to seperate the holes with what is basically containment mounding gave the course a manmade feel. In that aspect alone I don't think they have lived upto Kingsbarns. The other comparison to make with Kingsbarns is that at CS it is sand capped while the soil at Kingsbarns is more of a mix which gives it a grittier feel. Personally I prefer CS. Grass wise, and I'm no agronomist, but I think CS has a fairly pure fescue mix (I think) which to my eye meant that the ball didn't take as much borrow as you get on traditional links but as I said I'm no agronomist so I'll probably get shot down for that one.
Overall, taking into account the conditioning, service, clubhouse etc, its a great golf experience and I wish them well. I strongly suspect Ill be back to play again and maybe I'll appreciate it even more second time around but I suspect it will be like KB in that my interest might wane after a few plays. Very enjoyable but not one to get the adrenalin pumping.
Other quick comments, 4 of us got round playing off the green tees in just over 4 hours walking, and that included a 12 year old and a 75 year old. Green to tee, 12th to 13th aside, the walks were fairly short and very manageable. Condition wise the course was outstanding, easily the best I've played this year in Scotland.
Niall