I think there is logic in both kicking or receiving, but I think I agree with this. Even if the argument is that the Chiefs would have gone for 2, then we are basically talking about the game coming down to 1 play. I'd rather try to stop Mahomes on 1 play then letting them get the ball with the 3rd possession and having to stop him for a whole series of downs. The problem of course is the 49ers had to settle for a fg so the 2 point conversion didnt come into play, but that doesn't necessarily make it poorly thought out.My first priority in OT is to rest the D. By the end of regulation defenses are exhausted and gassed due to burning their adrenaline early. See Rams vs. Titans for evidence therein. So take the ball first. Let your defense rest. And gash the opponent with guys like McCaffrey and Henry.
The NFL changed the OT rules because the analytics proved that sudden death favors the offense and first possession. So the 49ers strategy is sound. You control your fate mathematically. It's just analytics.
Opposition in the debate will say that the 2nd possession gives that team 4 downs to drive the field. It's true. But the team with first possession also gets four downs. The 49ers would likely go on fourth and short too. So it's a false narrative although I can understand why the opposition wants to say it.
When it comes to going for two. I would always kick on the first possession. Let the 2nd team gamble to win. They likely will. But it's a coin flip. They not only have to drive the field to score, but the 2 points is just a coin flip. Let them gamble.