Is chess more about avoiding bad moves rather than finding good ones?

It seems to me that if I don't make any awful moves in games I usually win, which might seem reasonable at my level.

But then in the candidates tournament, you might say it is much the same.  For every fine move or sequence of moves that decide a game, there seem a lot more that are decided by a fairly basic error that eventually leads to a loss.  You might say Carlsen is world champion mainly because he blunders less often than everyone else.

I suppose that isn't much of a revelation, but if true then avoiding blunders might be the best way to improve your rating?

If you think that the candidates games are decided by "basic" errors, then you've been relying on engine analysis a little too much.

Technically there is not really such thing as good moves, just moves that keep the equilibrium and moves which make your position worse.

That's just nonsense.  Svidler and Kramnik have both dropped pawns for no reason at all and gone on to lose.  No engine required to see those.

And I did say 'fairly basic', the Svidler and Kramnik examples were particularly dramatic.

If you wish to view chess as a celebration of human error, you should feel free to do so.  After all, one cannot lose a chess game without making a mistake, so any good move that is played is the result of a bad move earlier by the opponent.

If, on a certain move, there are 4 candidates which result in +0.80 but one that results in +2.50, and White plays the 2nd or 3rd best move, did White make a significant error, or did White play a decent move and simply fail to find a great one?

Personally, I feel this is a pointless argument that depends on one's world view.  Neither stance can be refuted with fact.