I think you may be talking past each other. Chess programs, for example, certainly "consider" the opponent. Indeed, they consider the opponent to the extent of mapping out tens of billions of possible opponent moves.
What I believe you're saying is that they don't do is consider the opponent as a unique individual, rather than as a generic opponent to be brute-forced. They don't say, "Oh, well I'm playing against Kasparov, who plays aggressively, so I'll set a trap," versus "I'm playing against Karpov, who overvalues his knights, so I'll threaten them." (Note: these are not actual foibles of Kasparov or Karpov).
Knowing your particular opponent is, it seems to me, a tree-pruning technique, in much the same way that the Monte Carlo approach that is highlighted in the article. If you can anticipate ALL possible opponent responses to an acceptable depth, that's clearly better than making assumptions about how your opponent will respond.
Yeah, they said they didn't understand the distinction, so I was clarifying. Poker leans a lot more towards the Rock Paper Scissors style of AI, where determining the best move becomes much more dependent on understanding your opponent's strategy.
What I believe you're saying is that they don't do is consider the opponent as a unique individual, rather than as a generic opponent to be brute-forced. They don't say, "Oh, well I'm playing against Kasparov, who plays aggressively, so I'll set a trap," versus "I'm playing against Karpov, who overvalues his knights, so I'll threaten them." (Note: these are not actual foibles of Kasparov or Karpov).
Knowing your particular opponent is, it seems to me, a tree-pruning technique, in much the same way that the Monte Carlo approach that is highlighted in the article. If you can anticipate ALL possible opponent responses to an acceptable depth, that's clearly better than making assumptions about how your opponent will respond.