To a degree, I sympathise with Daggerheart's suspicions. The suspicion of AI hangs over the best players. Meaning the use of computer programs.
Knowing that your opponent might always or even sometimes resort to AI is irksome.
But I see it as having advantages. Having a few bots around to knock you for six is a useful corrective to vanity. After all, why are you playing the game? To cut a figure, and boast of your prowess? In that case the bots will really annoy you!
But if you play the game for the pleasure of thinking, judging situations, trying out new strategies, developing methods to reduce your careless errors (such efforts might save you from a serious road accident!) then you can happily ignore the bots. If they are playing as a contest between rival programs, what harm are they doing us? It might even be interesting to kibbutz their games, they might give you some interesting ideas.
Personally I confess I like winning, so I limit my games to exclude the masters. It's fun playing against weaker players who are not making too many blunders. And good for them too, to see how I win. And I do lose games! I even lost three in a row, which did hurt, against much lower-rated players. I find the slightest let-up in concentration is fatal against such players. So on a bad day I am going to lose.
Daggerheart: another suspicious thing in Quarto is the presence of masters in the 700s, then a huge gap of over 100 rating points before the next player (who currently is me!)