Chess and, or Despite AI?

Qualifications:
     For those who will read this: I strongly thank you and provide a note about my qualifications. I do not work or study with any development nor functions of Artificial Intelligence. This note is important because I will not cover nor reference the deep workings of these machines within this article. My references will be, on some basis, personal and more generally framed. However, despite my lack of scholarly support, I wish the reader to consider this blog and potentially act upon it!
Purpose and Introduction:
     As for the reason I am writing this blog, I want to make an impression on you readers, specifically regarding chess. Overall, the modern world is a wild place, with choppy political seas, a swath of responsibilities, recreational possibilities, and constant advancements in diverse fields. Specifically, regarding chess and engines, chess has had those developments for decades. Be it from the early failures and successes of the 20th century, the 1997 defeat of Garry Kasparov by IBM's Deep Blue, to the modern way humans use engines. No matter the case, engines are part of chess history, and here is my argument.
Engines Then and Now:
     Since the instatement of engines in chess, there has mainly been consistent improvement by the engines and human utilization, as a result. The effects of deep inclusion are doubtlessly large. The largest and most transparent of these effects are modern opening theory, which all levels of chess players use for their own games. Hence, starts my arguments. Opening theory can be a serious issue, when considering the cycle that comes about through preparation. As Bobby Fischer put it, the preparation against a player's preparation, requires deeper preparation. To explain, common theory quickly branches into deeper lines, and many players must explore novelties, deeper and deeper. Without a doubt, this cycle continuously leads the game of chess further into memorization actions. If you disagree, then ask yourself why you play certain openings consistently, why many top players play Fischer random, or why when a game review loads, book moves show up. It is the nature of chess but only intensified by engines. In other words, is the simple matter of what has become theory, which consistently manipulates choice and threatens creativity's role in making personal preparations. My main criticism here regards the role engines play in opening preparation. There is no doubt advancement of opening theory would happen regardless, but engines only speed the process and effect the definition of what competitive chess is. 
     Outside of openings, many players also look upon engine evaluation during and after all sorts of games. To keep it short, the main problem with that being human reactions to it. Constant engine support only demands constant adjustment for the person analyzing. Many stylistic choices could be damaged with the opinion of one, or a few, moves over the rest. 
     Lastly, chess is a human's game of outwitting one another with will, creativity, and mental gymnastics. What goes without saying, is that engines tarnish this directly. Already, I've mentioned how engines can tarnish that definition, through memorization and influences on style. Concluding this, I hope any points I make, make sense. 
My Personal Experience:
     Just yesterday, I played in a chess tournament. That much is of little importance, but I had overheard some amateur competitors talking about opening theory after 1. d5 Nf6. It only serves to sadden me when, not even experts at the game, went about the prioritization of engine lines. Why should the main focus at this point be memorizing a sequence of engine moves? Not only are there problems, which I had tapped into before, but it only shows where chess could be heading, at that accelerated pace. To add, I personally have boycotted any use of AI and engines because of what I believe engines threaten. It should be my priority to improve at chess through creation, hard work, and talent. All which should naturally separate chess players of any level, when engines do not suppress (This is not any claim of my own strength, but rather how I act regarding what chess is). Even in watching games of any kind, there is typically an evaluation bar present. When seeing this, it does not give the entire position's story nor does it give viewers a sole chance to make their own observations, mistakes, or a specific observation of sole commentator analysis. Overall, what will chess become if a narrow definition of perfection is incepted? And if engines are disregarded for any reversion, why have engines anyway? In the end, my personal experiences only solidify what I have noticed, and now I have spoken in shallow depth about these observations, to conclude this section. 
Calling and Conclusion:
     Regardless of your opinion, I thank you for taking the time to read this, and still I ask that the reader finds some message in the little I have written. Perhaps, to act upon or think about. In conclusion, engines are large part of modern chess, but this new revolution of computation may not be what this ancient, beloved game needs. 

Again, thank you!