Not improving equals more fun?

A recent opponent has made the suggestion that perhaps I shouldn't try to improve my game if I want to keep the fun in chess.  I don't believe this to be true.  Any improvement I've made in my game only seems to enhance the fun and enjoyment I get out of chess rather than making me feel utter disappointment.

Does anyone else feel that a higher rating/improving your game/learning takes away from the enjoyment or do these factors only reinforce your love of the game? 

It's more fun if you study a little bit - then you can do combos and special moves which is awesome fun. Sonic Boom!

I'm hardly at a high level, but every ounce of increased knowledge has, so far, just made the game more fun and interesting.

A position that 6months ago looked empty, uninteresting and boring can now be full of ideas, plans and possibilities. Because I now have a vider array of ideas and plans in my arsenal.

Depends on how you view chess. I have a friend that plays on this site that hates to study openings so for him improving in that area takes the fun out of the game. I on the other hand enjoy playing a fine game of chess and also enjoy all the studying and effort you have to put into it, so while I have more fun the more I improve he has more fun the less he improves. So it all depends what kind of person are you? A casual player a hobby player a serious player? depending on your answer I could answer your question.

I think getting better.. is, well.. ALL the fun :D

I guess some folks enjoy losing. I'm not among them: the more I understand this game (still feebly), the greater my enjoyment.

 I find studying openings really dull (so I don't).

I've read Jeremy Silman's, Amateur Mind. This book was a great beginners book. Learnt about imbalances and gained other great insights.

Then I read Nimzovich's, My System. This helped with position stuff, really need to go over it again since most of his excellent advice has left my memory.

Then I read an endgame book (forgotten which one) and learnt about all  KvP endgames and the crazy stalemates that you can get against bishop pawns -also, opposition, triangulation, terrific stuff.

I've not read a chess book for a while now and my game has become stagnant and interesting.

Also, did lots of tactics, they're always fun. (when you get them!)

If he is around our level, opening study is hardly a must to improve.

 I completely agree. Basic opening principles is all you need at our level. There is much more interesting and beneficial aspects of the game to look at rather than memorising loads of lines of theory.

Although, I have been known to be wrong in the past :)

He has a much higher rating and plays much better chess (he is a chess genius)-what takes me hours to see he can spot in seconds, and he has refined the endgame to an art. That being said, I have played him countless times over the board and  I can boast that by merit of opening preparation we have a more or less equal score with perhaps a slight advantage to myself the score is something like> +87 =40 -83 

As a legend of Welsh Chess - I found that winning so many tournaments may have brought me fame, riches and more filthy chess groupies than I can poke a stick at.  

And fun?  To be honest a little samey, boring even. 

But I seriously haven't looked back since I had that full frontal lobotomy.  The fun is back and I haven't won since.

 What is his rating? Is it over the board? I'm honestly not meaning to offend, but he can't be that good if he has a roughly equal score against you over the board. If your opening preparation was your strong point and you used this to get good results against him - he, as a great player, would realise this and play out of the book stuff to eliminate your strength. Also, I've played a lot of 1800 folk on this site, and if they have an over the board rating it is nomally between 1200-1400 USCF, meaning that your probably in that bracket. Great players demolish folk like you and me.

Sorry to disapoint but his OTB rating is 1700 FIDE. On this site he is a 2200++ player we are not in the same league. And in itself playing out of book stuff will lead to a bad position to begin with no sense playing that. In any case believe me at your leisure- I have nothing to prove.

I'm in this as much for the chatting as the playing. Though winning is the goal, it is far from everything. I am not competitive and simply love to play, play, play.

There are many different ways to play chess, and for each one there are many different ways to approach the game. The key is to have fun, but different people will do that in different ways. I hate opening study, so I play correspondence chess, Chess960, and other variants. But I really enjoy tactical study, so I spend a 1/2 hour on tactics trainer every day. That's how I have fun, but I wouldn't expect or insist that others have fun the way that I do.

I've never heard of a 1700 otb player being called a chess genius before. That's just average, nothing more, and among a collection of serious players, rather small.

 Yeah, that was my angle. I really don't mean to offend anyone, 1700 OTB is a great achievement, but it's possible to reach this target with hard work. I think nearly anyone determined enough could do so. A chess genius, to me, is someone that reaches a level that others can't achieve through hard work alone.

'And in itself playing out of book stuff will lead to a bad position to begin with no sense playing that.'

Strong players have given weaker players the odds of a piece in some games. So I think a really good player could cope with a position that is out of the book against a weaker player. Especially if the point of it is to reduce the weaker players main weapon - there strong opening knowledge.

i think the more you understand the more fun it is!:) i hate when i have to just do something and hope that something good happens because i dont understand the positions good enough

 Yeah, exactly what happened to me when I got better, of course probably to a different extent.