I know Big-Lebowski-style "Well, that's just your opinion
, man" ideas of how opinions work are popular on the internet, but that is not how opinions work. Contrary to my choice of avatar, opinions are only valuable insofar as they are well-argued.
"Xanatos gambits" are complicated conditional plans, and are foiled when something unexpected happens. The entire article could be reduced to that. They aren't excellent storytelling, but rather a writing trap. They're an excuse to have a scene where the villain explains their complicated plan, but these almost always come off as the sort of hokey Lex Luthor/Bond villain scene that even kids movies
make fun of. "Xanatos speed chess" isn't any sort of theme at all: it just seems to be a villain that just reacts to what's going on in an intelligent way. However, the fact that the speed chess trope exist hints at the pointless of the gambit trope: there is no difference whatsoever
between a villain who reacts to what happens and a villain who had a plan all along unless you show the viewer/reader the villain's thought process! The real theme or archetype is the dramatic-revelation-of-my-plot scene, which, again, is very rarely done well and is strictly confined to genre fiction.
These are badly-written articles about bad genre writing, and one of them isn't even a recurring theme, just the absence of a recurring theme.
Are you saying that knowledge of tropes is COMPLETELY useless?
Not exactly. I'm saying that thinking in tropes will make you a worse writer, that building characters or settings or plots out of tropes will make you a worse writer, and that talking in tropes is obstructive to making yourself understood. If tropes are entertaining, then they're useful for that.
It's beautiful and so full of deep imagery that it doesn't surprise me to find that it has gone WAY over your head