The thing is that there is no known general objective criteria for "best" and "bad" moves. The best we have so far is based on engine evaluations, but as I said before that is because chess engines are better at searching the board's state space than humans, not because chess engines have solved chess in the mathematical sense. Engines are quite capable of misevaluating positions, as demonstrated quite well by the Top Chess Engine Championship [0] where one engine thinks it made a good move while the other thinks that move is bad, and this is especially the case when resources are limited.

The closest we are to solving chess are via tablebases, which are far from covering the entire state space and are basically as much of an exemplar of pure brute force as you can get.

> "chess engines are still capable of making mistakes", I'm sorry no

If you think chess engines are infalliable, then why does the Top Chess Engine Championship exist? Surely if chess engines could not make mistakes they would always agree on a position's evaluation and what move should be made, and therefore such an exercise would be pointless?

> inaccurate yes but not mistake

From the perspective to attaining perfect play an inaccuracy is a mistake.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Chess_Engine_Championship