It comes down to what do you value? Do you value playing "your" best game vs "your opponent's" best game? Or do you value playing the best game possible, using whatever tools necessary to do so?

This philisophical split is also in the speedrunning community. The tool-assist players aim for absolute perfection: what would a "perfect run" actually look like? They make recordings at 1/60th of a second, and have a computer input the sequence of buttons with absolute perfect accuracy.

Or, are you a human-only player, who values skill and training?

There's something to be said about the two sides. But I find myself preferring the "theoretical perfection" side... as just my personal taste. I can see why people prefer the skill-and-hard work approach though.

Sorry for the belated response, I've been thinking about this for a bit before answering because I think it is a subtle matter. I think the reason why I don't go for this 'theoretical perfection' angle is that it takes the fun out of the game. That's where computer programs, cold and emotional will not feel the joy of a win, their programmers might but they might just as well not even be aware of the game being played. The only way to get that feeling on both sides is for unaided humans playing other unaided humans.

The 'perfect game' is something that a computer will one day find, a curiosity but just like a math proof ultimately just a thing waiting to be discovered, not achieved.