win in 6 moves ?

Write about this topic

http://en.lichess.org/GN3k9OSSOa7k
(Note, that i did that on purpose)

fastest mate available in the market

This also works the other way with a shorter half-move
http://en.lichess.org/8mWmX03s

Notice the computer analysis does NOT say 'blunder' after 2.... g5
I wonder why this is. If there ever was something that could be called a blunder..

"Mate in..." is worse than a blunder or even an engine score. The game is over.

A bad engine score or worse a "Mate in..." are not on the same continuum as bad moves and blunders which are on a separate, but often related continuum. For example, you could have a game that was very well played by both sides throughout the whole game eventually resulting in a "Mate in...". Conversely it is possible to commit a blunder and still be ahead in the engine score if you were far ahead to begin with. Put another way, they are apples and oranges and therefore your statement holds no water. You can't compare apples and oranges.
You can compare things in the same category by saying "Mate in..." is worse than a bad engine score" OR "a blunder is worse than a bad move" but you can't compare things in different categories.
Having said that they are related. Bad moves result in worse engine scores- that's the definition of a bad move. Very bad moves result in large decreases in engine scores, even to the point of "Mate in..." which is exactly what happened here. And that's exactly why it should have been noted as such- as a very bad move ie "blunder" which is designated by the double questionmark. If you notice the engine gave that move a single questionmark meaning a bad move but because it resulted in a "Mate in..." totally unnecessarily it clearly should have been designated with the blunder notation ie double questionmark.

I hope you can forgive the verbose nature of this post but I really wanted to make that clear :)

You're clear, and clearly misunderstand what was said. "Mate in ..." is worse than a blunder or bad engine score because it means (provided your opponent sees the mate) you are lost. A losing score without a "Mate in ..." sequence means the game is not technically lost yet, it is just losing.

In other words, you're wrong. We're comparing losing to lost; so it isn't apples to oranges, it's apples to applesauce.

I'm afraid it's you that doesn't understand. That statement attempted, to and you still attempt to, make a relative comparison between ideas that do not differ by being a merely different measures of the same concept but between ideas that involve different concepts entirely. Hence, the reference to apples and oranges.
But if that metaphor is not sufficient in it's clarity to allow you to grasp this, allow me to raise a different one. To say that "'Mate in...' is worse than a blunder or even an engine score." would be like saying "Being 50 pounds overweight is worse than being 25 pounds overweight or cheesecake."
I hope the clarity and even humor of that turns the proverbial lightbulb on for you =) If not, I'll even spell it out for you. "50 pounds overweight" and "25 pounds overweight" quantify conditions that exist as a result of a causation. Eating cheesecake is the causation, not the condition. Just like a blunder is the causation of a condition in a game of chess but not the condition itself. You can say "50 pounds overweight" is worse than "25 pounds overweight" and you can say "eating lots of cheesecake" is worse than "eating lots of vegetables" but you CANNOT SAY 25 POUNDS IS WORSE THAN CHEESECAKE!!!!! That's illogical, and makes no sense... just like how I am trying to explain to you that the statement in question makes no sense. It's exactly the same, and if you can see it for one you must be able to see it for the other. That is, if you have an open mind and are willing to consider the possiblity that you might be wrong, which I must admit is rare these days. I hope belong to that rare breed which is able to do that because quite honestly, I'm getting tired of typing about this ;P

If you want to compare apples and applesauce as your preferred metaphor, go right ahead. It's perfectly valid and apples are tasty. But for the love of logic and reason, just please don't throw in the kitchen utensil that made the applesauce into your comparison!! ;)

Not entirely sure what is being debated here. Likely something lost in the excessive wording.
Mate in... Game is over in X moves.
Blunder/Engine score ... you are losing, but chances still exist and/or the engine cannot calculate to mate.

So if you are complaining that is a lack of associated symbols - yes, Mate is worse than just a bad engine score or blunder, and could be marked with a "blunder" or "??"... is that what you wanted?

I just know from reading engine output - there IS a big difference between a "mate in" and engine score - however large. For the former, then engine calculates to the end in all combinations. For the latter, the engine is still uncertain how it may all end. So a "mate in" is most certainly more definitively lost.