I wouldn't worry too much about theorists that get caught up in the pedantic discussion of AI saying that chess computers are not "true AI." Give a chess computer a position it has never seen before and it will "score" it, make predictions of most likely moves, score the resulting positions, and select the move it has selected as best. It is good enough for games, and good enough to become World Champion. There are not many humans that even a good 20 year old chess computer can't beat. Yes, it fails to learn...although it is possible as the user to update the opening book to avoid the position in the future--or to call for a different move. The move choice can also be slightly randomized (this is done with the "opening books" already.)

Frankly, if any vid game could ever do half as good as my 20 year old Par Excellence chess computer (officially tournament rated as "expert" when it was sold) then I would be quite satisfied with that game's AI.

The real problem with today's games is in writing an AI (or rule set, whatever) that recognizes basic patterns, and responds appropriately--and sometimes with some random branching...that last little subtletly is often missed, but is the key to limiting human ability to ruthlessly exploit 100% repeatability of errors. RTW's AI responds 100% inappropriately in far too many situations compared to MTW. Quieteus likes to claim that MTW and RTW's AI are the same. I can point to things that show they are certainly not identical although they share characteristics. However, Quietus misses the forest for the trees, even if he turned out to be correct. His thesis only shoots a giant hole in his defense of RTW. RTW's battle dynamics and combat calcs, projectiles, and unit balance differ tremendously, so using the same AI would be the equivalent of fighting WWII with WWI tactics...or WWI with American Civil War tactics.