Chaining of preposition "to" with "prefer"

In 1939, Churchill made this remark about Russia.

It is a riddle, wrapped up in an enigma inside a mystery.

So apparently he was not drawn to

It is a riddle inside an enigma inside a mystery.

But there is no objection to it. Churchill was a great orator, and followed the principle of variety of expression. The question is whether the meaning is clearly expressed (and understood).

There is not much opportunity for this kind of nesting or stringing. And the preference is a specialist use in a way. As you say, the use of letters preference theory has a clear reason for using letters as variables to express generalities in which the value of the variable is unimportant. A preference theorist has reason to want to understand how people decide on and maintain (or not) an order of preference. For example, if I prefer a to b to c it seems to follow that I must prefer b to c. But does it? Well, we should have to test it. But if I say that a is bigger than b than c, no such test is necessary: It follows logically!

Nor is there anything wrong with the chain you think are wrong.

Scissors beat paper beats rock... except that the logic does not work. If a “beats” b and beats b and b beats c, it does not follow that a beats c. On the contrary! But the meaning is clear: it is just that the sentence is incomplete. You need ... beats scissors!