Interesting thought.
Before somebody brings up Carlsen/Nakamura with the argument that they were both children of the new interwebs era, I'd agree that instant gratification (online chess 24 x 7) can encourage laziness and give people the false impression that they don't have to do the "work" anymore to get a desired result.
Why analyze the game after I played it when Fritz does it on auto-pilot? Why ask stronger players critical questions when I can query a massive chess database and merely copy the moves of the Masters, without really bothering to get into the reasons why the moves were played.
Finally (my favorite), why invest 2-3 hours in a slow serious game when I can play 200+ 1-min blitz games and brag about some inflated online rating?
I don't truly believe prodigies today are way fewer in number than back then ... but I guess they now have to suffer the distractions of the "instant gratification" age and work through them.
It's 1:30 p.m in Chennai, India and you've encouraged me to go out on a beer run!
I was just thinking how amazing it is that I just played live chess with someone in Mumbai India, that is >8000 miles from me.
I sometimes wonder with this chance why we have not seen more great young players. Hell you can get a game any time of day or night. Morphy, Alekhine, Capablanca, Steintiz, Lasker, never had that chance in their lifetime.
Would online day or night chess have been a blessing or a curse to those guys? Is that why we don't see the Fischers (Great at a young age) anymore? To much online anytime chess and less study? Just a late night beer induced thougt.