Where chess better before the computers took over?

Well what do you think? Was chess a better and more fun game before we used computers to our help? Back in the days, players like Paul Morphy, Capablanca, Lasker, Tal, Fisher where experts in calculation and i guess verry good at finding the best move. Probable of all the hard work they did. I'm not saying GMs today dosen't. Ofc they do. Probable even more hours. But with a greate help of computers.

Chess is a game for the human mind, should it stay that way with out computers to interfere?
But since computer being a great part of the chess development has it all been for a good thing?

-Yes you might say, I train on the computer every day and i have become much better. Well that's really not the point. Was chess ment to be "solved" with the strength or lack of strength of the human mind? All the hard work former GMs had to put in to find the best answer to any given counterplay. All you have to do now is push a button? What did computers do to chess? Did it teach us how vast chess is ,or did it make chess smaller by letting us know "This is a bad move" so you can skip this road, -it leads no where.
 

If you where to read a crime novel, what if someone told you every thing about the content and how it ends. You really wouldn't need to read it any more if you don't want to. But IF you do. You would have a diffrent mind set of all the information you would read, because you allready know if it's true or not.

Or would you rather read the book alone and not having every thing for free?

Was physics better before particle accelerators?