Glad to hear it, but the article writer hasn't conveyed it well. It really sounds like he's describing fiction about the clash of hyperrational superminds who aren't held back by petty things like "mistakes" or "emotions."
Also--the article mainly uses the term "rationalist fiction," which is fine, but the title is "rational fiction," which is rather a turn-off. It reminds me of L. Ron Hubbard rattling on about how he doesn't write fantasy because fantasy is for stupids who can't write good, and he is a smart because he writes science fiction which is for smarts.
The whole tone of the article is kind of self-congratulatory. If that doesn't reflect the actual stories, well, good.
Characters in rationalist fiction don't need to be without flaws. They need to be without the obvious, cliched flaws that make most fiction work.
And in particular, this needs to be true of both the villains and the heroes, or you would indeed end up with something boring. The villains should have read the Evil Overlord List, and not make any of the obvious mistakes on it.
Many of the men in GoT who are closely involved in the power struggle are indeed quite rational. They have to be, since the less rational tend not to survive for long in that story.
I can't say the same for the women, though. Most of the major female characters in GoT have a streak of crazy in them. Dany, Cersei, Lysa, Lady Stoneheart... The Tyrells seem to be the only exception.
Tywin sends armies to torture villages looking for the brotherhood and burns crops despite knowing this is the last harvest before winter and food stocks are low. Most of the leaders in the war of five kings do the same thing - and get themselves killed to boot.
We only see Lady Stoneheart kill perhaps half a dozen senior enemy commanders.
Tywin burns crops because he wants the riverlands to starve. He is willing to destroy a large swath of the country in order to stay in power. It's a perfectly rational means to a despicable goal.
