(Note: There may be some ambiguity from the title alone, due to the 100 character limit.)

Since chess is finite and deterministic, it is theoretically possible to objectively label any position as winning, losing, or drawn.

Therefore, the current system of "score" that engines use to analyze a position is actually nonsense from an objective point of view. With enough depth, the "score" would always be +ℵ₀ (or whatever the engine uses for forced checkmate for white), 0 (drawn), or -ℵ₀ (forced checkmate for black). Are these not the only possible evaluations of a position?

If so, it follows that moves can be characterized in exactly 6 ways. If W, L, D represent won, lost, and drawn positions, the six possibilities can simply be written as ordered pairs of game states before and after the move (W, W), (W, D), (W, L), (D, D), (D, L), (L, L).

For example, a move that makes a won position into a drawn won could be (W, D).

Our intuition of a range of severity for mistakes is something that a theoretical supercomputer would not share. Is it then meaningless to speak of how bad a mistake is? It seems to me that the only relevant point is whether it changes if the game is objectively won/lost/drawn.

Fortunately for us humans, any advantage can be squandered and any deficit overcome.

Therefore, it is useful to receive such calculations after the game so that we know where to point when asking others to admire our brilliance.

(Note: There may be some ambiguity from the title alone, due to the 100 character limit.)

Since chess is finite and deterministic, it is theoretically possible to objectively label any position as winning, losing, or drawn.

Therefore, the current system of "score" that engines use to analyze a position is actually nonsense from an objective point of view. With enough depth, the "score" would always be +ℵ₀ (or whatever the engine uses for forced checkmate for white), 0 (drawn), or -ℵ₀ (forced checkmate for black). Are these not the only possible evaluations of a position?

If so, it follows that moves can be characterized in exactly 6 ways. If W, L, D represent won, lost, and drawn positions, the six possibilities can simply be written as ordered pairs of game states before and after the move (W, W), (W, D), (W, L), (D, D), (D, L), (L, L).

For example, a move that makes a won position into a drawn won could be (W, D).

Our intuition of a range of severity for mistakes is something that a theoretical supercomputer would not share. Is it then meaningless to speak of how bad a mistake is? It seems to me that the only relevant point is whether it changes if the game is objectively won/lost/drawn.