Besides, with online chess, the machine is already pressing on the clock for you, writes down the moves for you, don't allow you to play any illegal move and so on. It turns players into vegetables, and next, the machine will suggest you a move to play, so you don't have to think nor waste time into a "futile game".
Not to mention you don't have to worry about the touched piece rules... Plenty, yeah, so.
I don't view the clock pressing, move writing, being able to only play legal moves even remotely touching the essence of the game of chess. Runners don't take their own time, racers don't change their own tires, illegal moves in sport get punished and can lead to exclusion and writing down moves isn't even possible in the quicker chess formats (there's also exceptions to writing down moves in fide rated games).
Those being done for me don't hinder my enjoyment of playing a game of chess, on the contrary.
They also obviously aren't on the same level as moves being played for you by a machine, which is illegal/cheating.
I certainly don't miss arguing about if a move was legal, if it is checkmate or if the rook was on f1 or g1 - imo that's not "playing chess" that's useless discussion distracting from the actual game in the 1st place.
Then where's the big difference between not being able to play an illegal move and making an illegal move, an arbiter/chess club official coming to the table and saying "no, you can't do that" and not being able to play the illegal move anyways?
With technology it's also only a question of time until moves and times are recorded automatically. Electronic scoresheets are already approved (which probably also already prohibit the recording of illegal moves) and from there it's not a long way to have the whole chess bureaucracy automated.
Finally there's enough opportunities to kind of bluff inside the rules (without false checkmates or illegal moves) by just seeing more - oh no, my Queen.
If you play two illegal moves in the same game (and the arbiters knows about it), you lose the game.
It was my job and my job alone, to spot and avoid the last trap of the game I posted. In real life, as it has been seen many times, I could have not seen properly, be convinced by the apparent confidence of my opponent, shake their hand, stop the clock, mark 1-0 in favour of my opponent on the score sheet, and find out my mistake only once it was too late.
Here, I've got no merits, the machine told me already, before I look, before I think, that I was not mate, since it did not stop the game altogether.
I find it just plain wrong. It was my job to pay attention, keep control over my emotions and see the complete picture of what was happening on the chessboard. Instead, I had to produce zero effort of any kind.
So, no efforts for this, no efforts for that, no self control whatsoever if for touched pieces or anything, and now I understand why online players find it so challeging to play OTB, like many told me it was after having play and lost their first game in my club team, against what seemed to them a weak opponent.
And so, maybe these things cannot be changed, but still I do express my opinion, it's not truly, not fully chess anymore. It's yes a chess based game, but of a lower kind.
Plenty is no ground for setting rules.
Otherwise, the promotion rule that did not make it clear you must pick a piece of your own colour, would never have been changed into you must pick a piece of your own colour only. Because the plenty was on the side of games where the problem never occured, that picking a piece of your own colour or not was a game changer.
If you google it, you'll find it, but it actually happened a couple of times , that in prized games with money at stake, a player won a game by delivering a checkmate that occured out of that weird, but legal choice: promote your pawn into a piece of the opposite colour.