Is chess all about winning?

Chess is all about playing, haven't you ever offered your opponent the chance to take back a stupid mistake rather than spoil the game?

Only in the occasion that I play somebody considerably weaker and without a clock or if it's somebody (who makes the terrible mistake of) expecting me to talk through/help them with their chess.  

Even casual games at the clubs require clocks + move discipline (touch move/piece)  or else you gain nothing from the experience, training wise to prepare you for actual tournament play.

I find this to be somewhat ridiculous.  What do you gain from winning on a blunder in a very complicated position?  How does that prepare you for tournament play?  The fact of the matter is that it doesn't.  Every game should be a learning experience, and you take away from that when you punish your opponent for every mistake he makes.  When I play casually with friends (who are serious about improving and relatively close to my level) takebacks are a staple of the game.  We are trying to improve our game, so we often analyze positions or go back and see what should have been done differently for both sides and how the resulting position would have worked out/what plans both sides would have.   

Haven't you ever felt you deserved to lose and admired your opponents slick winning combination?

Deserved to lose?  Unless he's a computer engine, I don't think so. Admire?  Yes ... believe there is a refutation that he missed and I will fight tooth and nail to find? Even more so.

"Deserved to lose" is a losing attitude.  I pretty much agree with Shivsky's post, although there are some cases in which defeat is almost inevitable and you just can't resist being amazed (playing against GMs or playing against engines).  

Are you proud when you beat an opponent who you always beat?

Not really, because you really should go after somebody new who is the one to beat.

On the comment that it should be all about playing : I used to crumble instantly  vs. stronger players purely on the basis that I thought of them as Gods. I used to admire the way they tore me apart with a "gee, shucks, these guys are so good" mentality. One of the first things that helped me start getting wins against them is to 

a) Realize that they are human and make mistakes too.

b) Transitioning my mental state from basking in these "chess is beautiful, enjoy the scenery, finding the perfect move is the one goal, it's okay to lose as long as you gave him a good fight" delusional rays of sunshine to a "stop making excuses + work really hard at MATING THE BASTARD across the table using whatever means possible."

Losing is motivation.  There is nothing wrong with losing, as that is what motivates me to win, and what teaches me what I did wrong.  Losing is more important than winning to a chess player.  Also, I don't agree with the whole "MATE THE BASTARD with whatever means possible".  It shouldn't be all about winning.  It should be about playing your best chess, and if you do that you can see who wins.  If all you care about is winning you'll end up just playing trap lines and cheap tricks and winning games but not getting any better.  It's the kind of mentality that condones 4 move checkmate at lower levels.  Win at all costs, including any chess improvement or attempt to appreciate the beauty of the game.

If you are even remotely serious about playing this game,  you just have to put winning on top of anything else.

I can not express in words how wrong this statement is.  Chess should be about fun and learning.  If you only play to win, you will not go far.  If you truly enjoy the game and study hard, winning will come.  Winning should NOT be the destination, it should be the gift by the side of the road.  The destination should be true chess understanding and the winning will come later.  I guarantee that almost no serious player will say that they care about winning more than anything else.