bots, zoo, and the meta-complaints

  (Edited: )

it should be noted that I actually don't play hearthstone that much, I spend more time watching day9, trump, amaz, tournaments etc.

that said, I'm interested to hear some thoughts about all the stuff at the moment along the lines of 'hearthstone has no skill', 'bots are ruining the game' 'zoo sucks' etc. etc. 

I guess the whole issue interests me because in some ways I think that having a deck like zoo, or the shaman bot deck sets a benchmark - a solid deck which any new innovations or more creative things have to measure up to.  whilst I can certainly see the frustration in playing lots of bots on ladder, I'm also fascinated by the idea of a computer program which can play the game to similar level to humans.  let's think about two other games: chess and starcraft.  obviously both games have a (reasonably) good reputation, both involve some degree of skill and thinking, both have large-ish followings in terms of pro scene.  the evolution of computer chess is really interesting - from my limited understanding computers have been getting better and better, to the point that they can be competitive at the highest level.  however (again, correct me if I'm wrong), in starcraft even the best AI are really nowhere near the pro players.  I guess the point of this is that whilst I think the ability to which a bot can play a game does have interesting implications for the game, I really don't think it's as simple as "bot can play game therefore game requires no skill".

what do you guys think?  can having competitive bots be good for the game?  does having 'low skill' decks which focus on basics rather than higher level decision making (i.e., zoo-type decks) be good for the meta?  would be really interested to hear others thoughts :)