There is no winning move in chess

A mathematician is not necessarily a good chess player. But for a mathematician a little involved in the mathematics of games and especially decision trees, the vocabulary used to comment on the parts seems absurd. In fact the concepts usually used should be ... inverted!
Is there, for example, an acceptable notion of "good move"? The answer is unfortunately negative. There are only "bad moves"!
To begin with, one has to classify the types of positions in the game. Obviously, there are positions where one side has lost. They can be called W- (blanks have lost part) and B- (blacks have lost part). But a precise definition of "lost part" is needed. Without entering into the workings of the formalism of the trees, the game is lost to the player P, whichever blow he plays, there is a replica of the opposing player that puts the player P in a "lost game" position. This definition is necessarily recursive. Of course, a "final" position where a player plays - for example - with a king and a lady against a single king is "lost" to the king alone. But the recursion mechanism operates at infinity, and therefore any position falls into one of the three categories W-, B-, and equal (=). An equal position can only be defined a contrario. A position is equal if none of the players has lost, ie if it is neither W- nor B-. This is true for all the positions of the game, as complex as they are, and therefore even for the starting position. There is no intermediate concept, nor a 4th category! In strict logic, there is no "advantageous", "favorable", "difficult" position ...
The set of losing positions of a player (of a camp) is called a "losing kernel", or simply a "kernel".
That being the case, the moves can be classified in turn. There are exactly six categories of shots. Here P represents W or B, depending on whether the line is white or black, and O represents the color of the player's opponent. There are the blows ==, OO, PP, O =, OP and = P.
Hits == occur when none of the players is in a kernel, and when the kick played does not change anything. This is probably the case with the most frequent opening moves, and this is probably the most common type of shot in early and mid-game, especially by good players. It's a neutral shot.
= P occur when none of the players is in a kernel, but the kick played puts the player in a lost position. This is the case of obvious faults, but also of many blows which it is very difficult to identify as fault. It is a losing blow.
O = shots are when the opponent is in a kernel, but the shot played saves the opponent from this situation. It is a blow renouncing the gain.
OP moves occur when the opponent is in a kernel, but the shot played not only saves the opponent from this situation, but also puts the player in a lost position. It is a catastrophe.
OO moves occur when the opponent is in a kernel, and the hit played keeps the opponent in a lost position, hence in the kernel. These shots are played by the players who have a decisive advantage and keep it. This is sometimes obvious, but of course it is extremely difficult, even for an excellent player to distinguish him at once ==. This is a positive neutral move.
PP blows occur when the player is in a kernel, and the shot played can have no other effect than to keep it in that kernel. These shots are played by the players who have a decisive disadvantage and necessarily maintain it. This is sometimes obvious, but of course it is extremely difficult, even for an excellent player to distinguish him at once ==. It is a negative neutral shot.
There is no 7th category of blow. There is no "coup" and no "winning combination"!
It is amusing to note that the parties' comments emphasize "winning strokes", although this notion does not exist. If a super-intelligence alien saw a part, he would always answer something like, "It's not a win-win, it's just one of the OO shots that the player has since his opponent Has had the pleasure of playing a blow = P. It was not he who played well, it was his opponent who gave him a winning path by placing himself in the kernel. "
In the same way, it is amusing to note that the "problems" posed to chess games do not in fact aim to find a winning stroke, but rather to find a positive neutral stroke (OO) among a vast set of blows renouncing To the gain (O =) or worse still (OP). It is not a question of finding a good move that would move the balance of the game, but rather of avoiding bad