Help me "get" the basic moves.

I'm inclined to think some of the moves could be replaced by limited, focused common use cases:

Go Aggro is -> When you point a gun at someone and tell them to do something.

Seize by force is -> When you beat someone into letting go of what you want

With the adendum "Make up new Moves on the fly if you want. If an existing move would work for it, great, use it, with maybe a tweak". Shreyas, do you think that'd be more congruent?

Oh please. "Highly problematic."

Look at the possible outcomes of the move. If they seem like they fit the circumstances, the move fits and you should feel free to use it. If they don't, it doesn't, and you should keep looking.

That is embarrassingly bad play advice and I think you know it. "When you do a thing, consider the result spaces of all the moves as specified, and if your thing has a result space that is similar, use that move," is an incredibly tedious and laborious procedure with a much heavier processing requirement than "When you do a thing, check if it's a thing in the description of a move, and in case it is, use that move."

You shouldn't advise play methods that are bad because they patch gaps in the text!

Alright, I'm late to the debate and I don't have much clout but here goes. I have no problem with any of the Moves as they are written. The way I see it, when designing rules you can do one of two things; make a specific rule for every single posible situation that will come up in play, or make the rules broad enough so that players can interpret and decide when and how they apply. Apocalypse World does the latter. There isn't a list of every possible situation that could force someone to Act Under Fire in the book because no one could anticipate all the relevant situations. The same goes for all the other Moves; they're broadly worded so that they can apply to many situations and not create a boat load of hedge cases that have to be dealt with.

I think that pouring through a list of Moves to check if the thing you're doing is listed in the description will take just as much time and processing power as looking at the possible outcomes of a Move and choosing the one that fits.

That is embarrassingly bad play advice and I think you know it. "When you do a thing, consider the result spaces of all the moves as specified, and if your thing has a result space that is similar, use that move," is an incredibly tedious and laborious procedure with a much heavier processing requirement than "When you do a thing, check if it's a thing in the description of a move, and in case it is, use that move."

You shouldn't advise play methods that are bad because they patch gaps in the text!

And yet, playing the game, not tedious or laborious.