Chess: Fun vs Winning - Mikhail Tal vs Straume, Riga 1953

Mikhail Tal vs Straume

I've been trying to define a easy system for me as I'm ageing and don't have the time to do extensive study of chess. I used to be a d4 player but I'm now tired of them because at this time in life I'm more interested in having fun than having victory at the end of the game. This is why I've now started playing 1 e4. But I still lack a system to play. This brings me to Mikhail Tal. He was a Blood and Sand chess player. His games were all except dull and this is the kind of fun I'm looking for in my chess (although not as good, obviously!!!). Looking at his openings he played the Sicilian and the Ruy Lopez and the Ruy Lopez Closed (in that order) almost 60% of the games he played white. As black, the Sicilian, the Kings Indian and the Queen Pawn Game (with the Sicilian taking the lead with a ratio of 4:1 over the other two) were played 40% of time.

Looking to his games it's easy to understand why you'd like his games. They are vivid, aim only at the final objective, the opponent's king, and show enormous creativity by Tal. If one seeks fun in chess wouldn't he want to play like Tal?

This is my question: being a former d4 player sometimes I find it hard to let my mind loose in these open positions. How do you force yourselves to be creative if you want to play open systems and have fun?