How about 1. Playing a very good an interesting game only to suddenly lose at the end or 2. Playing very poorly but winning in the end anyway.
Otherwise, with your definitions, the word fun necessarily means the option where people are having fun is the one they would chose over the game where they had no fun (unless they didn't read carefully).
waffle: isn't fun the entire point of playing chess???
Rule #364 of the Universe:
Rednecks will always win.
waffle: isn't fun the entire point of playing chess???
Well, fun -> enjoyment -> motivation -> behavior.
Taken this way, then yes. And as stated people can only choose your option 1. That's what I was saying.
If you mean which is more fun, the game or the result, I'd say the game. For an example of the other you can ask any speed player.
Neither. I would study and practice to become proficient.
Fun in chess comes from winning. And, winning only comes from study and practice.
Want to be a happy chess player? Develop superior skills. Then you'll win. Then you'l be happy. Very simple. But it requires a lot of study and practice.
If you mean which is more fun, the game or the result, I'd say the game. For an example of the other you can ask any speed player.
So if you could win 10 boring games in a row, you'd waive those away in favor of losing 10 interesting games? Is that correct? :D
Neither. I would study and practice to become proficient.
Non-commital fence-sitter... 
I'm not going to come here and say I don't want to win. A win feels good, because you feel like, no matter how boring the game was, you did what you had to do to win. As much as I don't like to face it, sometimes my confidence really suffers if I'm losing games. It's important to face the games you have lost, but in practice it's pretty hard to have the same amount of enthusiasm for the game when it seems like everyone is beating you.
I would pick the wins, but only if it was against players of relatively high skill level. Wins against lower-rated players don't feel particularly great because you know they didn't force you to be resourceful and creative.
Looks like everyone else was too chicken to take a position. Come on, guys 
If you mean which is more fun, the game or the result, I'd say the game. For an example of the other you can ask any speed player.
Sports have more to do with prick waving than fun, from what I see. If it was about fun, there wouldn't be performance enhancing drugs or people using 3300 elo engines on their 1500 elo opponents.
But I only have fun when I win.
If you mean which is more fun, the game or the result, I'd say the game. For an example of the other you can ask any speed player.
Sports have more to do with prick waving than fun, from what I see. If it was about fun, there wouldn't be performance enhancing drugs or people using 3300 elo engines on their 1500 elo opponents.
You misunderstand, I linked fun to motivation, and qualified my statment as taken under that definition only.
If you mean which is more fun, the game or the result, I'd say the game. For an example of the other you can ask any speed player.
So if you could win 10 boring games in a row, you'd waive those away in favor of losing 10 interesting games? Is that correct? :D
I win boring games at my club all the time, and each week think about not going back.
I used to visit a club where I got beat consistently. When I started scoring 70-80% I stopped making the drive out there. (I visit about once every 3 months now).
I'd rather play a ton of players 100-200 points better than me, and lose every game. The games would be more interesting and I'd learn stuff (which I enjoy).
Taken to the extreme, I'd never play, because if you always won or lose it wouldn't be interesting. But given the choice, again I'll say that the result isn't as important to me as the game.
Losing is only a big let down when you... wait for it... play poorly. If I play my best and lose I don't mind losing at all.
Which is part of why I'm so terrible at clock management at tournaments. I'd rather find the best move I possibly can every time than cut analysis short and play something 2nd best.
Playing against the computer on full strength can be a crazy experience. I used to play a lot of practice games against Houdini. I lost of course, but, even against the strongest players, you always lose for a reason; you have to make some sort of mistake for it to take advantage of it. It can be a great learning experience. Unfortunately, my nerves would crack sometimes and I would have to play some human players to remind myself that most people make mistakes. I agree with wafflemaster's point that how you feel about a loss depends on how well you played -- you want to die coming up with ambitious ideas, not by playing trite, cookie-cutter chess where you just count on natural moves to replace your thinking.
LOLOLOL... Lies! 
Then don't ask for other people's point of view lol.
Neither. I would study and practice to become proficient.
Non-commital fence-sitter...
Not true. I just don't play internet "chess"...especially "turn-based" where you use a database to get fictitiously high ratings. So, back at you:
Number 2, and it wouldn't be close.
Neither. I would study and practice to become proficient.
Non-commital fence-sitter...
Not true. I just don't play internet "chess"...especially "turn-based" where you use a database to get fictitiously high ratings. So, back at you:
Your opponent is also using a database, making your rating fictitiously low.
1. Having a lot of fun playing a game but then losing miserably...
Or...
2. Not having much fun at all while playing, but eventually you'd sqeeze out a cheap win...
Now, which one would you choose?