By the sound of it your intent was to win eventually. You could imagine winning, and with some effort you did win. I think that's subtly different to playing against people who you will never beat regardless of how much effort you put in.
dragontamer's example of Magnus Carlsen is a good one - he was in the top 1000 players in the world when he was 12, and become World Champion at 22. He's intuitively good at chess. The match he played to become World Champion the first time was fascinating because as soon as he could get to the point where the game was outside of what Vishy Anand had experience of he was pretty unstoppable. He's not someone normal players will ever beat. I think most chess players would like to play him because he's famous, but if you met someone unknown with the same level of ability most people just wouldn't play them except to learn. Few people would want to play that sort of person for fun. It just wouldn't be very enjoyable.
By the sound of it your intent was to win eventually.
Eventually we all die. It's fun to play anyway.
In a less philosophical mood: standing against an overwhelming force can be exhilarating. I've felt something like that windsurfing in strong wind conditions.
Down to the specific question, losing always against someone you can't defeat is very good training for winning over others.
I play a fair amount of a regular scale FPS (12v12 max) and it happens fairly regularly that I end up being the last one alive in my team and have to face off multiple opponents.
I don't always succeed but the pure thrill of trying to survive what is usually a virtual death sentence is something really powerful and when successful so exhilarating.
Have you tried BR(battle royale) games? PUBG gets my heart racing too much. I also like that it mixes you in with both pros and amateurs. Not knowing the skill level of the player you are exchanging shots with keeps everyone on their A game.
The learning thing is sort of irrelevant since you can install a program on your laptop that is strategically better than 99% of humans and tactically better than 100% (which we now know through experience is enough to beat 100% of humans, even the ones with superior strategic reasoning).
dragontamer's example of Magnus Carlsen is a good one - he was in the top 1000 players in the world when he was 12, and become World Champion at 22. He's intuitively good at chess. The match he played to become World Champion the first time was fascinating because as soon as he could get to the point where the game was outside of what Vishy Anand had experience of he was pretty unstoppable. He's not someone normal players will ever beat. I think most chess players would like to play him because he's famous, but if you met someone unknown with the same level of ability most people just wouldn't play them except to learn. Few people would want to play that sort of person for fun. It just wouldn't be very enjoyable.