A family member used to be a professional CSGO player and another family member played Quake at tourneys back in the day.
Your point is moot because only 1% of people play at a high-level, thus chess is at least more interesting than what 99% of CSGO players will experience in terms of strategy. Their ability to react and aim in real-time isn't a consideration either, nor is their access to a pretty decent computer and internet connection to be able to compete effectively.
In that case, your original point is also moot because chess at low levels doesn't have any strategy besides gimmicks (scholar's mate, fool's mate) and then moving randomly and hanging pieces. Around 800 ELO, people start looking for pins, skewers, forks, etc. Around 1200 ELO, you hit a wall and have to start grinding openings for a year, and then you'll hit the final wall at 1700 ELO where you can't advance unless you played from childhood.
You don't need to be Global Elite in CS to have a team that attempts site takes/retakes/rotations and tries to use util effectively. You'll never have GE reactions/aim, but you'll also never be an IM/FM in chess no matter how much you grind. CS is still fun even as a silver/low gold nova pleb because the midgame has effectively unlimited variety (just like chess), and 10 independent players as opposed to 2 leads to much more diverse gameplay. CS also has the advantage of there not being draws (aside from in Valve's matchmaking), something which plagues chess all the way to the super grandmaster level.
Your point is moot because only 1% of people play at a high-level, thus chess is at least more interesting than what 99% of CSGO players will experience in terms of strategy. Their ability to react and aim in real-time isn't a consideration either, nor is their access to a pretty decent computer and internet connection to be able to compete effectively.