Finding the right move?

Yeah, so this sounds stupid.

I'm not even sure how I articulate this, but I struggle to find good moves. Sometimes I'll just make inaccuracies because I can't find anything better to do.

If anyone can give me advice on how I can improve in this area, it would be appreciated.

Additionally, I'm posting this late at night, so I won't be able to respond until morning.

@1

"I struggle to find good moves" ++ Well chess is no easy game, we all struggle. The general rule is to move your worst standing piece. You have to identify 3 candidate moves, then calculate possible sequences and evaluate, then blunder check. The main point is not to make good moves, but rather to avoid bad moves. You do not win by good moves, you lose by bad moves.

"Sometimes I'll just make inaccuracies because I can't find anything better to do."
++ Inaccuracies do not exist. If a move does not change the game state, then it is not inaccurate, and if it changes the game state, then it is a mistake, not an inaccuracy.
If you do not know what to do, then think some more.

If a move is not accurate, then it is inaccurate. That move may not be something that could be considered a mistake or a blunder and in that case it is an inaccuracy.

So inaccuracies do exist.

@3

"So inaccuracies do exist"
++ No, there are only 3 kinds of moves:

1. Good moves that do not change the game state draw / won / lost,
2. Mistakes (?) that either turn a draw into a loss, or a win back to a draw,
3. Blunders (??) that turn a win into a loss.

If you play a move that does not "change the game state" when there is a move that does change it to give you a slight advantage, that move can and should be called inaccurate. It is not a blunder, it's not really a mistake, but is not a good move either, it is an inaccuracy. And it does exist.

You may add as many + signs as you want, but it does not change the facts.

Say you have a game where "white is slightly better". It's not won for white, but still white has a slightly better position. It's white to move and there are a couple moves that keep the slight advantage after black responds. White plays a move that gives away the slight advantage. It's inaccurate, but does not "change the game state" as you defined it. That move is an inaccuracy.

@6

"a game where white is slightly better"
++ Slightly better does not exist. Each position is either a draw, a win, or a loss.

According to pretty much every chess book I have come across, slightly better definitely does exist. You are making up your own definitions and it is OK, but do not try to tell other people that things that definitely do exist don't.

A theoretically drawn position can be such that one side has more chances of turning it into a win. Or maybe it would be better understood that the side that is slightly worse has more chances to go wrong and end up losing. A couple inaccurate moves, inaccuracies that is, may turn a theoretical draw into a theoretically lost position.

Humans do not play like computers and a theoretically drawn position does not mean chances are equal. Therefore slightly better (and slightly worse) do indeed exist.

@9

"one side has more chances of turning it into a win" ++ You cannot turn a drawn position into a win, you can only turn a drawn position into either a draw or a loss.

"the side that is slightly worse has more chances to go wrong and end up losing"
++ That is subjective. A poor endgame player has more chances to turn a drawn endgame into a lost endgame. A poor attacker has more chances to turn a drawn attacking position into a loss. A poor defender has more chances to turn a drawn defensible position into a loss.
It is a property of the player, not of the position.

"A couple inaccurate moves, inaccuracies that is, may turn a theoretical draw into a theoretically lost position." ++ No, inaccuracies do not exist. One single mistake turns a theoretical draw into a theoretically lost position. There exist no inaccuracies of which a couple adds up to a mistake.

@8

"According to pretty much every chess book I have come across" ++ Bad, outdated books

"You are making up your own definitions" ++ No, I am not.
"I have attached question marks to the moves which change a winning position into a drawn game, or a drawn position into a losing one, according to my judgment; a move which changes a winning game into a losing one deserves two question marks ... I have distributed question marks in brackets to moves which are obviously inaccurate and significantly increase the difficulty of the player's task ... There are no exclamation marks, as they serve no useful purpose. The best move should be mentioned in the analysis in any case; an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator."
GM Dr. Hübner, Twenty-five Annotated Games, Berlin, 1996, pp. 7–8.

Not outdated or bad books, but also new and good books.

A position can objectively be slightly better for one side even if it is theoretically possible to hold a draw with 100% accurate play. In such case inaccuracies can turn the theoretical draw into a losing game.

And of course you can turn a drawn position into a win. If this were not possible no one would ever win at chess.

Inaccuracies and slightly better/worse positions DO EXIST as stated by many grand masters in many books, both old and new, outdated and up to date, good and bad.

A quote from what you qoted:

”I have distributed question marks in brackets to moves which are obviously inaccurate and significantly increase the difficulty of the player's task”

There is the word inaccurate is it not?

@11

"And of course you can turn a drawn position into a win.
If this were not possible no one would ever win at chess."
++ You do not win by good moves, you win because your opponent makes a mistake.

This may be, but it does not mean inaccuracies don’t exist.

In the text you quoted, it is stated that a player may play a move that makes their task more difficult. In other word gives the other player a slight advantage or gives away a slight advantage.

It is not a move that turns a draw into a loss or a win into a draw (mistake).

It is not a move that turns a win into a loss (blunder).

It is an inaccuracy.

? marks mistakes.

?? marks blunders

[?] marks inaccuracies

Suggestion: let's just ignore tygxc's insane theory, and let's get back on topic.

I don't think this is a stupid question at all. Finding "good moves" so to speak is a skill that takes time to develop. A mistake I frequently make is obsessing over finding the BEST move. And as insane as it is, I'm very hard on myself when I don't find the best moves. But I think more important is that you're finding solid moves. I think some of the best advice I ever got was to try to keep the game as drawn as possible until your opponent inevitably makes a mistake. And even that can become difficult at times because you will play people who just play a very solid game and mental fatigue sets in and you end up making a blunder or a fatal mistake that costs you the game.

The best advice that I can give with confidence is to focus on tactics and opening principles. At your level, I believe I saw you between 700 and 800, Maybe 800 plus, tactics and opening principles will carry you to 1200. I have to admit between 1200 and 1300 is when things really started to get challenging for me. I would frequently use the Fried Liver Attack and Damiano Gambit, the former you'll get many chances to use. So I guess I would amend my statement a little and say Tactics, Opening Principles, and basic traps will carry you farther. Control the center, develop your minor pieces, castle early, don't bring the queen out too early etc. Also understanding certain concepts like opening the position when you have a lead in development, pawn breaks in closed positions, and so on has helped push me where I'm at. But truthfully, I have to give the credit to my coach. Under his tutelage I've increased my rating by almost 700 points in the 8 months I've been learning from him. 

If ever you can afford it, I'd consider getting a coach. Some people may say coaches are unnecessary and a good chess book will get you where you need to go but fail to realize not everyone learns best from books. Some of us are more visual and interactive learners. If you have any questions regarding coaching, shoot me a message. I may be able to refer you to someone if you decide that's something you're interested in. 

Anyway, good luck. I hope some of my drivel here jumps out at you as helpful. 

All the best on your chess journey. 🙏🙏

An inaccuracy is a sub-optimal move. As you know, move order matters in chess. When you play a combination, sometimes there is a slightly more beneficial way to execute the combination. If you play the slightly worse combination, that is inaccurate, and the move is labeled as an inaccuracy. Another example would be if there is a best plan in the position, but you play a slightly sub-optimal plan or delay that plan unintentionally. Since you are not according to the best plan but are also not completely worsening your position, this move is an inaccuracy. The move itself may not be a mistake, but since it is not the best move either, it falls in a gray area. While I agree with you that all positions could be evaluated as winning, drawing, or losing, and that the three main classifications of moves are best, mistakes, and blunders, I believe that somewhere in the gray area between the best move and a mistake are inaccuracies. 

in the following article, search 'power moves'...

Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell