Yes and no. It's opened my eyes to a lot of things regarding golf courses; specifically, how and why they look as they do or play as they do. Prior, I just played, and didn't give a lot of thought as to a course being favorable or unfavorable, in my mind. For example, now, I look more at angles on tee shots, features, etc, greens, bunkers. I definitely look at trees and their use (or overuse).
It's also led to some interesting questions and conversations, for example, a conversation I had with Stephen Kay a few weeks back about the design and construction of Mccullough's and the how and why the course is as it is. Or, Kelly Blake Moran at Tom Paul's this past year about the role of golf course architect vs. land planner/site planner at the Lederach course and community.
You also notice more things-for example, the course I played in college, Rutgers GC, has a lot of trees inside bunker lines. I wouldn't have cared about that in 1997. Didn't know the difference, only "I'm hitting out of a bunker and around/over a tree". You notice why greens you've played just don't fit the hole, or seem awkward-then you find out the hole's been redesigned and used to play from the other direction. Same course, you notice how one of the greens has some really interesting contour (#18) and the rest are more or less pancakes. You look at landforms around the course and think "what if this went this way", or, for example, on Seaview Pines last week, you notice the outlines of bunkers in the rough or bunker edges that have shrunk. Same thing with greens--Kyle pointed that out to me at BSP-Red about 5 years ago, placement of sprinkler heads relative to the green surface. I caught myself a few times looking at greens last Saturday and the placement of sprinkler heads, thinking "what if..." Or, looking at the bunkering on some of the Flynn holes and comparing/contrasting it to better-preserved examples of his work. You appreciate Glen Ridge's use of angles (Willie Park, Jr) and 'death by papercuts' approach a heck of a lot more, relative to getting your ass kicked at BSP-BK.
I worked at Forsgate in 2001. Had no idea about anything then, just that the bunkers were deep.
You research courses, find out about the architect, and compare/contrast features while playing to other examples of the architect's work.
You appreciate the history of Cobb's Creek a lot more, for its place in golf, even if you don't think (as I do) the course is all that great.
Studying courses like, say, Hidden Creek with 'large' features, relative to courses with 'smaller' features and the effect on one's play, and how to prepare for rounds on both types of courses. Or being able to articulate to a group of GAP Volunteers at dinner why Lederach is so good and clever and it's them that are missing the fun of playing the course. There's another example-you learn to bounce it into #2 there, when flag is right or front, even though it's uphill and would seem to call for an aerial shot.
Maybe it has made me a better player; or, better educated to play the course as it was designed to be played. Or, at least attempt to. Looking at placement of bunkers or green contours or green position and attempting to hit to x position or y position.
Although, I do recall asking Harris and Bausch once, "what if we didn't worry about the architecture, and just went out and played, and didn't try to overthink stuff?"