Stupid enough. The AI can be better at making choices. It seems that you know nothing about testing and math. The choices is finite so the AI should know the values. According to your text I should be glad to play aginst weak AI in chess in case i just have less figures? Do you really enjoy play agains idiot who cheat all the game long? That's all about. No one like it.
Lol. I particularly like the math bit. Yes, the PhD theoretical physics student knows nothing about math. Anyways, if you want to read a good response to your statement, read delphizealot's. He laid out pretty much all of the reasons why developing AI for games like Elemental is so difficult, particularly when they have to compete against humans in an area that the human brain is supremely good at.
The fact that, when you open your eyes and see some 100 different objects in front of you and you can recognize what each and every one of those objects are instantly - even if its something you'd never seen before! - is an incredible feat. If you believe that God created us, then it is quite literally a miracle. If you don't, then it is a massive feat of evolutionary engineering. Asking for the same from a computer would therefore either be blasphemous or just wishful thinking.
To expand on the magnitude of the search space issue... The search space of Chess is of the order 10^50. That's pretty huge, it's a 1 with 50 zeroes after it. I doubt it has a name. But it's small enough and can be reduced enough by just being clever to the point where you really can make a Chess AI that evaluates all possible worthwhile moves on the board, as well as their future consequences many turns later into the game. Chess doesn't have all that much to do with patterns, really.
Then take a game like Go. It has a bigger board (19x19), no distinction between pieces, and some other peculiar features about it - some patterns can be easily deciphered by even beginner players allowing them to look far into the future of the game, at least for a specific area. People play it very differently from the way they play chess; they play it a little more like they might play a TBS video game IMO. Go has a search space of up to about 10^170. That's a 10 with 170 zeroes after it. That number is roughly 10^90 times larger than the estimated number of particles in the observable Universe. To make it worse, because of the 'peculiarities' of Go, it is difficult to reduce it very much. As a result, making Go-playing AIs is much, much harder than Chess-playing AIs.
Now take a game like Elemental. The size of the map in the current beta is what, 50x50? 100x100? One of those I think. The Elemental "board" (and not the max size board) is roughly 10 times bigger than Go's. You have customizable units. You build cities, where location matters. There are special features on the game board (resources, rivers, mountains, oceans, Dragon Fountains, broken wagons...). There is magic. There is tactical combat which happens off of the strategic map. There are randomly generated aspects of the game! You don't have full information... You start out without even being able to see the whole map let alone what's on it. There can be more than two players. There are multiple ways to win.
So please, don't go comparing Elemental to Chess. While I'd love for Elemental's AI to be to TBS games as Big Blue was to Chess, I would also like to play Elemental while I'm still alive. That is a commendable goal, but an entirely unrealistic one that requires more money than Stardock is worth and more time than they have. Therefore, we will have to settle for the best they can give us in a reasonable time-frame. Thankfully, Brad is quite good at what he does and I am sure that as far as TBS AIs go, it will be among the top. And like he said, it will continue to improve long after release.