Better classification of inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders in analysis board

The beauty of chess comes from the human element, from creativity, from ideas. As programmers one must be sensitive towards that.

It's very typical for people to claim they are objective when in fact they are not. It's true that one can say of decisions that they are objective within a certain framework, but you cannot ignore the framework. The framework provided by the rules of chess allows a degree of creativity because many ways lead to Rome.

We're talking about inaccuracies, here... not "nonbeauties".

Computers are better at chess than any human alive, and they've done that without homages to the airy-fairy "beauty of chess".

You know how they've done that? Pure objectivity. Complete adherence to meticulously refined heuristics.

And weren't you talking about the opposite? I'd hardly call chickening out and grabbing material to win in the endgame an example of the beauty of chess.