Why do we make unprincipled moves in Chess?

The game is drawn every time we make the correct ones.

There are principles, but they cannot even begin to cover all situations. Chess is too complex to be entirely reduced to principles.

Chess may well be a draw with correct play by both sides (most, though not all, informed players believe it is). But knowledge of the correct play in all positions is out of our reach.

Because we're human ?

@SimonBirch said in #3:
> Because we're human ?
Yeah

A wise master once told me there was a danger that I would become a new Larsen or Taimanov. (Actually he was quoting something that Botvinnik said to one of his young students, Garry Kasparov; but I like to think that puts me in good company.) He was referring to a game where I played the opening well and had the initiative early in the middlegame, but began a rather speculative attack on the K-side with h3 and g2-g4 while the center was still in flux. "You just can't go on making decisions like this, or you will never progress" That was easy for him to say after a game in which I missed my best chances and my opponent made the most of his counterplay in the center. What he didn't stick around to see was that even though my decision was clearly not the best, it was sound enough, and would have been successful if I had handled the attack better. But that's a big if.

In hindsight, I was (often am) lacking in objectivity, both as regards the position at the board and in my analysis, and with respect to my abilities to play certain types of position. I demonstrate a lack of discipline, coupled with a fascination with the possibilities inherent in destabilizing variations. "But the resulting positions were so interesting, I just had to try it"

Yes, it's often said that Larsen in particular might well have been World Champion in the 1960s or 1970s if he hadn't been so fascinated by all the wild possibilities in the game.

Slightly earlier in the 20th century, David Bronstein was another absolutely top player who was fascinated by bizarre possibilities. He got even closer to the title than Larsen did. I've seen it written that Bronstein was a top player despite, not because of, his fascination with the game.

So playing principled chess, or going for wild unprincipled play, depends on our attitude (as well as our general playing style). Are we interested in exploring all the wonderful possibilities of the game, or are we more concerned with our results?

@Clearchesser said in #1:
> The game is drawn every time we make the correct ones.
Chess is not a solved game so we can't know if chess is a draw given perfect play.

But the draw margin is immense in chess...so it is almost certainly true.

@MrPushwood said in #8:
> But the draw margin is immense in chess...so it is almost certainly true.
A game is either solved or not. Almost certainly true is a concept that does not make sense.

@Youcandothis said in #9:
> A game is either solved or not. Almost certainly true is a concept that does not make sense.

I'm guessing that you're a pure mathematician!

I've been taken to task before for saying something in a Mathematics forum like "X is probably the case" when X is a mathematical statement whose truth or falsehood is currently unknown. No, I was told, either X is true or X is false, period.

But chess is a human activity and I think we're allowed to look at it through our human lens and judge things based on imperfect knowledge.