That article is a good example of where everything is well-written and appears to have merit -- if you only take it at face value. However, it does not address opposite compromises/perspectives.

As an example:
He mentions that ring friction is the greatest loss in an engine, which we all accept to be true. He mentions that a shorter stroke has less drag of ring friction -- however he does not quantitatively discuss the 'longer' rings required in a larger bore. Based on a simple circumference calculation, a 440's bore/ring is about 3% longer than a 413 - so there is higher friction with a larger bore.

Larger bores take advantage of larger valves – but they weigh more. Running larger valves, and at higher RPM, requires stiffer springs to maintain control – with all else equal, there is increased inertia & more friction in the valvetrain.

Larger bores have more area and therefore require more time for the flame front to travel. This theoretically requires more ignition timing, and advanced ignition timing permits more heat to be lost to the cooling system. Ideally, ignition would start at TDC. Larger bores also have more surface area at the cylinder walls that hold cool end gasses that contaminate the next intake charge.

“My subject is racing engines, not street motors, so I'm not concerned with torque at 2,000 rpm. In my view, if you are building an engine for maximum output at a specific displacement, such as a Comp engine, then the bores should be as big as possible and the stroke as short as possible.”

It is known that an engine is most efficient at its torque peak, so you increase power by creating more torque pulses/unit time, however they become less efficient individually as RPM increases.

Yeah, if you don’t care about fuel usage and you want to run an engine at max RPM (and don’t care about the higher expenses involved with high-RPM durability), then his statements have more merit.

It’s all a compromise. Whomever suggested a scientific test of identical 413-440 builds hit the bullseye.