Yes and no. Sometimes it goes the other way. One the negative side, a hole/course I really loved years ago, before absorbing some gca knowledge, might not shine so brightly these days. This coming from an average golfer who pretty much enjoyed just about any course (with good company) before my spotty self education. If the round is slow and I have a lot of time to look around and ask myself why they did this or that, I’m much more likely to find faults and things I don’t like. It can be frustrating keeping my lips zipped when golfers talk about golf so much in terms of their own games or experience, which is normal, expected, and just the way it is. People who seem to need to convince others about how a golf course is presented and designed, based purely on their likes, dislikes, and games, can be a bit boring. Some good players can say some very dumb things and have much more influence than they deserve. Average golfers not so much, unless they think these guys know what they are talking about just because they can play a little.
On the positive side, my understanding of basic course strategy is so much better now, I am able to compensate somewhat for the diminishing skills of being a geezer. I also find I’m much better at appreciating the options offered and adapting my game (the one that shows up that day) accordingly. In general, I enjoy holes with more options and less obvious playing strategies and tend to think less of holes where the play is more dictated by the architecture—play it this way or else.