Comparing a game like Elemental to Chess is a bad analogy.
Of course Chess provides significantly less options than Elemental, but for you I always have to use the most basic comparisons available. These are both TBS games and the main differences is one has only two players, fixed amount of units, no diplomacy, no magic, no structures, etc., etc., which are all extra variables which reduce strategic options... however the point is the size of the chessboard clearly reduces or increases strategic options even for chess.
For absurdly small maps where there isn't room to move, sure. But once you pass a critical size, everything blooms to infinity in the absence of a time limit.
And even in the presence of time limits... Saying "there are more strategic options in a giant map because you can play 10^643 different ways, whereas you can only play 10^452 ways on a small map" is absurd in the extreme, because no one would ever notice. As long as the smallest number is large enough that a person can't even imagine the vast majority of potential decisions, then adding more is not going to make the game any more strategic.
The point here is no human would ever recognize all the different strategies, HOWEVER with more being available the gamer is more likely to recognize and have more options because of the larger pool. Thus it comes down to how many the gamer would recognize during gameplay, NOT how many are actually available. I'd rather have a pool of strategic options with a larger selection of choices than fewer.
Here are some of the other benefits available with massively large randomly generated maps: The massive maps also provide a much greater amount of units which will be fighting on the battlefield by mid and late game due to more resources and structures being available. The massive maps also provide a game where the human player is more likely to expand quietly and safely for weeks or on the 64bit maps even months. Based on my experience the larger maps are in higher demand from the singleplayer gamers as well.