Nothing is wrong with Go, but it's a game, not a video game. The whole point of the article was talking about video games, though. The lessons as to what makes Go good game are useful, but you can't design an entire video game around that.
That's a digital game, not a video game. Again, as Dinobro said:
Game a system of rules in which one or more agents compete by making meaningful decisions.
Since we're talking about his articles, I'm using his base definitions. I expanded off of them to create two more definitions.
Digital Game - A game that runs on a computer.
Video Game - A digital game that also includes a multimedia experience beyond the game. Advanced graphics, audio, narrative, etc.
I think we can agree that there's something different between a digital version of Go and Gears of War. This is like one of those square and rectangle things, which by the above definitions, a game that runs on a computer is not necessarily a video game.
The term "digital game" is particularly applicable toward bare-bones adaptations of board games, as the one you posted. In fact, it might be worthy to make a special class of "digital board games", since that does imply that they could be reasonably played without a computer.
However it could be argued that something like Tetris or Bejeweled is more of a digital game than a video game. I'm not wholly comfortable with saying "Tetris isn't a video game", because most people would call me crazy and say, "Well of course it's a video game!" So clearly, the definitions could use some work.
I spent a couple years and many classes in college attempting to define what exactly a "Video Game" is, but no one was ever able to come up with a perfect definition. There's always some exception to the definition. It's a lot like asking "What is art?", because it's hard to give a clear answer.
So my definition's not meant to be perfect, but it's meant to be good enough to point out that the whole "Story degrades video games" argument has some serious flaws in it.
You're arguing semantics a lot. It doesn't matter what you think a "story" or a "plot" or a"narrative"" is, the terms were defined for the sake of the discussion. When Dinobro says "story", just sub in the words:
Story a composed sequence of events.
Nothing more, nothing less. The whole point of using definitions like this is so that you sweep semantics under the rug. It doesn't matter if you go "Well that's not a story!" because what is a story, for the sake of the argument, is pretty clearly laid out. We're not trying to write Merriam Webster here.