To add to your skepticism, it sounds like an oversimplification of an all-encompassing and nebulous subject from a monotonous nerd's perspective, referring to the narrow case of board games and using thermodynamics and information theory as inspiration. The irony is that he says that intelligence and maximizing options go hand-in-hand, while he is explaining using few options with his narrow point of view. What would you say about somebody who was intelligent but set in their ways and didn't like being presented with options?
Kinda like Freud, who was one smart motherfucker but (in my opinion) had a tendency to project his own psyche a little too much into what was also a complex and nebulous subject.
Freud made fictitious case histories. There is no science to back up anything he ever wrote. It was an injustice the way that schizophrenia was blamed on bad mothering and women were made to feel guilty for their child's mental illness. You can't say that no one knew any better - biological psychiatrists certainly did know better for a long time. Freud was a charlatan.