Winning at poker requires a lot of adjusting, and adjusting requires knowledge of the game, so I don’t think there’s any poker pro who plays a style you described

Isn't it norm nowdays that players use solvers to tell them how to bet and they watch stats to make decision and thats it pretty much?

Or then I am just too critical since adjustment of my opponents (low end of middle stakes) are so poor, and same time they have a lot of pretty much useless theoretical knowledge of the game.

Not trying to be rude to them, but seems that many have a lot theoretical knowledge without understanding how to put it into practice effectively.

OP seems rather vague. What is your definition of "good poker"? What kind of "adjustment" are you looking for? What's wrong with using stats to adjust?

If someone opens 25% of hands I would 3-bet him with a different range than someone who opens 18% of hands. That's not "adjustment", in your definition, because I'm looking at their stats? If someone c-bets the flop too much (I can see it in their stats) and I begin to raise their c-bets more, that's not "adjustment" in your definition?

OP seems to assume that players tend to stop adjusting and instead stick to a robot-like style which is dictated by solvers. Which is nonsense.

Honestly, I feel like every student of mine who has tried to "memorize" pio has struggled mightily. It's honestly nonsense. You can't memorize one line on one board much less a full preflop situation. It's basically like chess. You can use solver heuristics but you'll never play like a solver.

I think there is a fundamental misconception about solvers that is pretty common these days.
For a lot of people, mostly people who don't work solvers themselves, often think of solvers as a standardized set of lines to take for each one of the hands in the matrix.
But the way I view it, solvers tell us where the equilibrium is. But the goal of poker is not to break-even, which is what equilibrium essentially means in this case. People study solvers, in many ways to see where profits are generated in poker, and how does an optimal (maximum profit for us) strategy adjust itself against a deviation from the equilibrium.
So if OP's definition of a "robotic style" is a quantifiable way based on data to measure and calculate exploitation instead of "looking the other person in the eye and tell this MOFO is bluffing", then yea, poker is dead I guess.