Which rules? There are rules? aren't they made to be broken? All the best photographers say so. 
Exactly my point, however, I should have put the word "rules" in quotes so you would understand my point more clearly. Or perhaps I should have used a word that is softer and less-offensive to you, like "guidelines".
Rather like former smokers, there are those who like to boast about their coming of age by ignoring or out-growing the "rules", but we all know you don't simply point and shoot (or, hey, don't point at all and just click where ever the lens happens to be pointed). No - you don't do that. So you must apply some compositional thought to the frame. They can be called rules or guidelines or whatever - but, the "how-tos" of landscape photography (of all visual art, actually) suggest silly things like the elements of design, principles of organization, and compositional techniques including (God forbid) the rule of thirds or the golden ratio, the rule of odds, the rule of space. (See en.wikipedia.org/Compostion_(visual_arts))(tongue partially in cheek, but please, don't try to pretend you don't follow some kind of "guidelines" (if the word "rules" is too strong for your free-spirited nature) when making photographs).
And YES, those rules are made to be broken (duh - we're not stupid!); it just doesn't happen enough. We see a great many "mechanical" landscapes made by those who follow the rules and have nice, what I like to call "neat and tidy", landscapes - too often my own work included. That being said, we have a great many who post here to get feedback about how to improve. Often that feedback suggests the "rules" are followed more closely to achieve balance, movement, etc.
In many ways, this photo does follow some basic rules (of thirds to some extent), but it also represents what we don't see often enough in landscapes; a "scrubby", grey, dreary, overcast day at, what seems like, the time of day when many "photographers" would be home in front of the fire; scrubby-looking snow, not that beautiful un-broken blanket we often see; two main trees (not three or five); centrally-placed focal point, not off-centre, a strong foreground (as is often recommended for landscapes), yet it is cut-off and seems incomplete ... In many ways it is the antithesis of what we so often see online, in calendars, books, etc.
Wonderful work!
