Did engines make chess stale?

It seems engines are great at finding defensive sacrifices, but absolutely terrible at finding offensive ones. If people learn from engines, does it lead to boring chess? I'm not anywhere on the level where that could concern me, but it seems to me it does.

1r3r2/4bpkp/1qb1p1p1/3pP1P1/p1pP1Q2/PpP2N1R/1Pn1B2P/3RB2K w - - 0 1

lichess.org/analysis/standard/1r3r2/4bpkp/1qb1p1p1/3pP1P1/p1pP1Q2/PpP2N1R/1Pn1B2P/3RB2K_w_-_-_0_1_

@PavlikPaja Don't think they do, however as you said you and I are very very far away from the level where that might pose a threat, instead of learning from an engine we should probably try not to leave pieces en prise ;-)

lol

Explain then why Qf6 is a bad idea.

@PavlikPaja Chess is not a one move game.yes Stockfish gives 0.0 at Qf6, If you play for two or three moves can make sure that your queensac leads to a victory for white? Imagine if you would have to do so otb, don't think that chess has been solved today...

It doesn't matter if I would, the point is that stockfish should.

I remember a quote but not exact. It went something like "The doors chess engines closed opened new ones" or something like that lmaoo. Anyway, no.

"Engines" are like the engines of the car.

A bicycle has no engine.
A car has an engine.

A car can travel farther and faster
A bicycle has a human gasoline, therefore it's effieciency is limited.

Like the engines of the car, the Computer engines were made to make a specific task easier, therefore when we reach in that destination, we can still do something before the day ends.

@PavlikPaja , @Bonifides , @Dillon-S , @Nikkoi , @Pandukht

Nah, at his best Maxime Vachier-Lagrave can still play brilliant games so computers haven't killed the game. Top players nowadays though should have more character and the killer instinct to come up with outstanding games. The world sure needs another Fischer and Kasparov.