Does studying make chess more fun?

I am a very low-level chess player, but I enjoy it a lot.  I don't really care if I win or lose, and I play people about my level, maybe slightly better, so it's a challenge, but I occasionally win.

Do people think that learning more strategy makes the game more fun?  Or is it always the same, because there are always better people out there, so you either enjoy it or not, and "moving up" doesn't make much difference? 

Does taking your own thinking out of the process after you learn the best moves in a particular situation decrease enjoyment?

I think its more fun because if you never learn say different openings n stuff it starts geting really repetative and boring doing the same thing over and over again and then its really fun when you switch it up a bit n stuff :D.

i think that is very obvious

I don't know that it's more fun, I'd just say it's a different kind of fun.  In the beginning what I liked was chess was a completely level playing field.  Just a blank canvas where you and your opponent co-created something interesting.  So I'd calculate as best I could and make a move.

And really, I don't think it's much different now.  The difference now being I know many of the basics and experience gives me tactical and strategic themes to guild my calculation.

But you're not too far off that as you get better, players learn best moves for more and more positions... it's just probably much further down the road than you may think.  After you reach master level there's a certain research aspect to the game that wasn't there before where you're learning lines and looking at instructive games from the past to reference in your head while you play e.g. "Karpov played this line in the 80s, so I knew it was solid."

I'd say when you get to put your knowledge to good use it's fulfilling.  Now you're also pitting your acquired knowledge against your opponent's.

Is that more or less fun?  I guess it just depends on the person.  I'd only say it's fulfilling to have hard work pay off.  You may not win, but you didn't feel clueless in a position that would have confused you in the past.

In a way, anyone beyond beginner is already starting to experience this.  It may be an opening trap you know not to fall for (or try to spring on your opponent).  Anything from basic tactics (like forks) to opening principals (like castle to safely).  So it gets a little different but not necessarily more or less fun.  As the old Indian proverb goes "chess is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe."  Some players stay at a novice level their whole life and are no less justified in their continued and immense enjoyment than professional players who tour top tournaments.

No stronger chick magnet than a stack of chess books.

The only thing I might add to wafflemaster's fine post is that learning is the kind of fun that I prefer.

When I play chess, I like to win. But when I go over my games, I'm seeking truth. When I was beat because my opponent had a better understanding of the position, and I'm able to improve my understanding as a consequence, the sting of defeat loses its venom.

The process of going through master games while playing is the principal appeal of correspondence chess, and that sort of chess is the principal reason that I am on this site. If I'm not learning, I'm not happy.

I think chess becomes more enjoyable the more you study because you attain a higher skill level and can compose more complex ideas on the board.  

Thanks for the responses.  I had a feeling that what you are saying is true, of course it makes sense that if you learn about something that you usually get more out of it, but chess seemed like it might be different.  You are always just trying to figure out the best move, so I thought it might actually take some of the fun away if you had memorized what the best move is, rather than trying to discover it yourself.  But it also makes sense that being aware of the complexity and mastering it is another kind of fun.

Didn't Bobby Fisher get to the point where chess became like checkers to him?  He always knew the best move to make, and it wasn't fun for him anymore.  so he said, "Chess is dead", and then invented chess 960 to make it new again for him.

What if I study and get as good as Bobby Fisher and then chess would be dead to me?!  That would be terrible. ;) 

Actually I did look at some youtube videos and tried some opening gambits on people and that was fun, but just because they are about my level and didn't know how to respond.