Is there a way to see why something is a good/bad move?

I played my first game against a human opponent, and ran the analysis after to find out where I made mistakes and good moves.  One thing that gets me though is that it'll just tell you if your move is a blunder/inaccuracy(not even sure what that means)/good/best  and tell you what the best move is.  But it doesn't tell you why, and that's more important than just knowing the best move or why your move was bad.  For example, I had 2 inaccuracies, 1 mistake, and 2 blunders - 1 of them I know why it was, but I don't know why the other was considered a blunder.

I believe even if it tells you why, it won’t be better than you know why. You should be trying to figure out why, not the engine. Some titled players recommended that I first analyze my game, then I see the engine analysis.

Yea, but if I can't figure out why on my own, knowing would help.  For example, it had 1 move as the "best move," which I saw only as a taking a rook for a knight (the line shows it taking 2 pawns, I still have the knight, he still has both rooks [one is on a now open file, which I could have taken next move in exchange for a knight, but still leaving an open file rook]), but also depends on his making the "right" move (which the game labels good, not best)...whereas the move I made  (which the game called an inaccuracy) had perpetual checks and took both rooks, one by forced move, and a pawn for a knight.   So I'm not sure why they're saying taking 2 pawns and a rook, and potentially leaving one on an open file, for a knight in a sequence dependent on the other person is better than taking 2 rooks and a pawn for a knight in a forced sequence. Plus, it shows the same 2 moves as being the best moves each time, which would lead to draw by repetition.

Also, just found out the website is more useful than the app since it give you a high level reason.

There is a way to see the best moves line after a move since it might help you understand the future position, and how this move affects it.

Instead of speaking in riddles, you should probably gave us a link to the game in question (and also tell us which move is that you have problems with).

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/403306381?tab=analysis

27.  After Rfe1, I played Rxe1+, which the game said is an inaccuracy because "You overlooked a better way to threaten winning material."  Now initially, I was going to play Nf3+ Kf1, Nxe1, trading a rook for a knight (let's ignore the fact that I didn't think about the King taking my rook instead) but then saw Rxe1+ forced Rxe1, so I played that to take both rooks.   

The game is showing the best line after Rfe1 is Nf3+, Kf1, Rxb2, Rab1, Nxh2+.    The issue I have with that line is 1) he still has both rooks at the end (or at least 1 if Nf3+, Kf1, Nxe1, Rxe1), 2) there's no check after Rxb2 and the e file rook now has an open lane, and 3) there's no guarantee he plays Rab1, which if he doesn't, that rook is still defending the back rank, whereas he has no choices in the sequence I played.

I think a blunder is when your move makes you get in a worse position at the game (probably losing a piece). An inaccuracy is when you could attack or defend yourself, but you make a move that's nothing to do with the "treat". Sometimes I be like ??? bc I made a move thinking about future strategy and it accuses like an inaccuracy, maybe because I get unprotected with that move?? I really don't get it

None of this is true. Not even close. Please don't spread misinformation.

An inaccuracy is a small mistake. (Leads to a slightly lower evaluation than the best move). A "mistake" is a bigger difference, a blunder is even bigger than that. It has nothing to do with defending yourself or being unprotected (whatever that is) or any "treat" (whatever that is).

Thanks.

So first, you should not care about inaccuarcies. You made multiple horrible blunders that game (like 5. - Nxe5 that gives up a knight for nothing). Your focus should be to stop making those blunders. Playing a move like that in a daily game where you have almost unlimited time is really, really weird. Blundering away a piece matters a lot, inaccuracies don't matter at all.

Second, "You overlooked a better way to threaten winning material" is complete nonsense. You should not care about what the useless "game review" says, it is just gibberish. Chess engines are nowhere near to understand and teach chess. You should switch to the "Analysis" tab (top of the page), where you can see the actual engine lines and evaluations.

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/403306381?tab=analysis

Tick in "evaluation" and "lines". Now you can see what the engine recommends. If you don't understand it, you can make moves and see how the evaluation changes and what the best 3 moves in each position is.

As to the position in question, the engine claims that your move leads to a position of +12, while the best move leads to +19. As both of them are incredibly winning, it does not matter. The line you chose (winning the exchange and trading pieces) is the human way to do it, I agree with you. The engine thinks that keeping all the pieces on leads to an even bigger advantage.

Dear, magipi.

I understand your point very clearly, thanks for sharing, even if was in a very arrogant way.

I will explain to you what I meant, because I think you didn't had the ability to understand my first comment.

"Get unprotected" is when you move a pawn and open up space, to the opponent attack your king, for example. And, as you said as well, that is a small mistake! So it wasn't misinformation, in the first place; you just needed to know how to interpret the text!

And, finally, I'm repeating my question, because you didn't have the ability to answer properly and politely (maybe you can now ): If you intend to prepare a strategy, with that "open space" you made; for example, placing a knight strategically, I don't see why it's inaccurate. That was the point of my question, that you didn't have the ability to respond properly.

Anyway, I strongly recommend a class of interpretation of texts and a revaluation about the way you communicate with other people, not for chess, for life!

Kisses!!

Yea, Nxe5 was a bad one.  I looked back at it and could not figure out why I did that.   I can usually say "well, this was my idea....I just did not see that happening"  and figure out where I went wrong, but I had nothing on that one.  Strangely the app calls that a mistake and the site calls it a blunder, but the app calls 23. Rxd2 a blunder and the site calls it a mistake.     20. Bh3 was worse though since I hung my rook, which I noticed immediately after and why I played Ne5 when he didn't take it. I did have a plan on Bh3 though, but after post-game review, I saw it was not a great one anyway.

Thanks, I'll start using the site and that tab instead of using the app and see if I can begin to see lines.  And it's good to know my thinking in that trade sequence wasn't off, even if it wasn't the "best."

Appreciate the feedback.

The Game Review feature will give you a short textual description to give you some idea of why your move was good or bad https://support.chess.com/article/364-how-does-the-game-report-analysis-work

However this AI analysis is rarely as good as a real conversation with a strong player. If you don't understand the analysis you can post your games in the forum and most of the time someone will reply to help you understand better. You can also agree with some players to have an analysis session with them after the game and you can get a lot of valuable insights from that.

I'm sorry, but this is not how computers (or humans) evaluate positions, and moreover, this is not how things work in chess in general.

Any type of move (be it a pawn move to gain space or a move to place a knight strategically) can be the best move or it can be a small inaccuracy or it can be a gigantic blunder. It all depends on the position.

When a computer says that your move is inaccurate, it is for one reason only. The computer calculates that another move gives you a slightly better position than that one does.

Yeah, someone have message me and already explain how it works, and helped me with a move that I didn't understand, but thank you anyway!

The classification of a move is judgmental.  Before the computer era, books were annotated by high-rated players.  Today, a human programs a computer to make that judgement (it's still just someone's opinion).

You're not going to understand every evaluation.  When I have a question, I ask someone more knowledgeable than I am.  I can learn more from a human than I can from a book or computer program.

I very much hope that you are kidding.