Did the evolution of chess engines and software make chess less attractive?

My stance is :

No; Not even a little. 

Here’s the thing: chess has always evolved through whatever technology existed at the time. The romantic era had coffee‑house analysis. The classical era had correspondence games. The Soviet school had teams of seconds and adjutants. Today we have engines. The pattern is the same . Humans use the best tools they have to push the game forward. 

 If someone objects to engines, databases, or software, then by the same logic they should object to studying Capablanca’s games, or reading Nimzowitsch, or copying Tal’s sacrifices, or learning from annotated magazines.

Chess has always been a game where the weaker learn from the stronger. That’s the whole point of a tradition.

What matters is how you use them.

Even in the era of pen, paper, and magazines, lower‑rated players studied the games of grandmasters, absorbed their ideas, and tried to implement them in their own play. Using modern technology is simply the next step in that same lineage. It is a continuation of learning from the strongest minds available.

Oki

but you answered your own question

I just stated my instance which could be refuted. Some people compare playing chess with solving a 6 digit x 8 digit on a paper with pen and argue that why waste time when calculator does that in a fraction of a second ? Maybe that is how they genuinely feel about chess with the advancements in chess software and hardware

So you are another Kramnik but downgraded to the 1000 elo club? Got it bruh