If you are playing 1 v 1 where the win condition is to score X points, try to get to X as fast as you can in the short term by looking for the most efficient standalone pieces and using them. If there is an endgame condition on top of that, aim to reach it as fast as you can to maximize the benefits of your short-term efficiency. Players often overestimate themes and underestimate how effectively you can sprint to the finish.
If you are playing with more than 2 players in a game where players heavily affect each other, be the one that everyone else "knows" isn't a real contender for victory but is a pain to get rid of. Avoid the attention of beginners and make sure other players would rather dismiss you than deal with you. Their perspective matters more than your plays, so if you make a less efficient move that keeps their eyes off you, it's a good thing.
The core of your article as I see it. The article is longer than it needs to be with what it has.
- Listing win conditions didn't do a lot, not even fully lining up with your article. Race and Accumulation Conditions are merged in your strategy example, while adding a separate section for an end condition unlisted in your win condition list. Duel elimination is only mentioned in an inaccurate aside. Idiosyncratic win conditions may as well have been "other".
- "The endgame starts earlier than you think" isn't much more than that sentence. You mention someone disagreed, but that you see player biases aligning closer to your point.
- "Choosing between beelining towards victory vs playing to not lose" is a recap. You throw in a "perfect info duel elimination" note saying to spend equal time looking at your own moves vs your opponent's moves. I disagree with there being a credible ratio, it can fluctuate all over the place and I wouldn't try to rule of thumb it. Your note on player bias towards focusing on their own moves is usually true but a separate topic.
- "Against other strategies for winning" isn't a really valuable section. This article is using a generic tip to advise beginners on beating other beginners with minimal effort. The main issue with "central narrative" is players trying to be thematic and forgetting what the game is actually about, which you've noted elsewhere. If their "central narrative" becomes more accurate, that issue may disappear. You overrate both how unique your advice is and how big of an of an issue having a similar initial plan as your opponent is. Your psychology and optimal segments are overreaching. Those thought processes are both tools, not even always full plans themselves, and are much more complicated and case by case than the mini segments you gave to each could cover.
- The "when not to use my advice" is silly. "Don't use my advice if it doesn't work or you don't like the idea". No kidding. There might be some use to it if you dived into the limitations of your advice, such as how it's structured as beginner advice to beat other beginners, and what other limitations it may have, but as it is, I'd just delete it.
As far as the actual advice itself, it's generic enough starter kit advice. You can lob it at games you're going in blind with, see which parts of the game it works, and which parts it doesn't, and go from there. The bar for beating beginners isn't high, this is another way to clear it.
