Chess.com ratings are so inaccurate

I mean from my experience when there are 200-rated players who play stronger than some 800-rated players, the rating system is not completely working, it is rather a complete trash.

Smurfing/Sandbagging is a problem in every game. Not just chess. No matter how accurate your rating system is, it can't do anything against players who deliberately lose to play against low rated players. If that's the case, your issue is less about accurately calculating the ratings. Your issue is more about how to prevent smurfing/sandbagging. Because yeah, if this is your argument, it doesn't matter if any of the points you said before was true. It does nothing for your case. Your arguments don't account for players who deliberately lose to intentionally play against low elo players.

The only way for new players to break out of it is to actually play and improve. It doesn't change what you need to do. Because I had the same experience. However, I figured that after playing more games, it's not every game. And I slowly climbed to my current rating. Just play on.

So we've just established that it's less about the rating system after all but with sandbagging. Your question shouldn't be about how to calculate ratings more accurately but rather how to detect if a player is trying to lose on purpose. Those are completely different issues. In my opinion, that's harder to address. How do you detect if a player, especially a new account, is trying to lose on purpose or is just bad?

Sandbagging happens indeed but don't cling onto that single example. Sometimes players are overrated because many players are even more overrated on their level so they beat them and get increase. And vice versa, some players are underrated because many are even more underrated on their level. That's how they stay in their rating. That's pool isolation (but there are other kinds of pool isolation). But if they play tournaments, where pairings are often more wide, then they may get a sudden bump or drop in rating.

"Why am I being matched against people rated lower than me?" Said noone ever. So being underrated isn't actually a problem since you could easily just climb if people around your elo are actually subpar. For the opposite case, people who are overrated will easily lose if their performance is actually subpar against people in that rating.

So in either cases, you'll win enough games or lose enough games until you actually get matched to people that are on par with you eventually. This is exactly what I meant when I said that the rating system is self correcting.

For what it's worth, I did experience that pre-1000 elo, the performance of each player that I play against vary greatly. It's either too bad, too good (could make the case that maybe these are smurf accounts), or on par. Past 1k, I think people stabilize here more. So the players there tend to be on par with each other and the quality of players just tend to be vary less and less the higher you go up. There's not much variability anymore in terms of performance.

No one should care what they say, matchmaking should be wider for better accuracy and that's it

I think this'll give the newer/lower rated players a harder time. High rated players probably wouldn't mind it. But yeah, I'd imagine that there'll be more complaining. It also doesn't make sense to widen the matchmaking if beginners tend to complain that they're already struggling against people in similar rating.

Last word on this. Just enjoy chess. Improvement will naturally come. If it doesn't, who cares? What's important is that you're having fun with the game. With enough improvement, you wouldn't have to worry about smurfs. At some point, you'll just start crushing them too. All the best!

Sure, if you improve you improve, but there's another, deeper issue: the game is rigged.

Sorry but in all honesty, I would argue that in your level, it's less about being rigged. More about being inadequate. Being a beginner is ok. Everybody starts somewhere. But it just rubs me the wrong way that you think the site is out to rig the game for beginners.

I took a look at your profile. You could do puzzles, lessons, and longer games are better suited for beginners but you play blitz and bullet instead. You do none of the tips that help beginners improve so how exactly do you expect to get better? Instead of looking for tips to get better, you'd much rather get in on conspiracies about how the game is rigged?

Lol ok.

Game is rigged by chess matrix, quantum time and reality manipulation happen, moves replaced, clock glitches, this all was documented read messages 1161, 1173 here https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/game-is-rigged-cant-win-2?page=59

I am not a beginner

Ok it seems dubious but I'm willing to grant that you encounter this once every few games. I'll be honest, I've yet to encounter this. But I would say that even if I did, I wouldn't be far off in my current rating. In this link, you argue that you're conversing with someone that downplays it. In my opinion, you're exaggerating the effect of this in your rating.

Ok then. Have you played against the bots? Who's the highest rated you've played in challenge mode so far?

All of that is a skill issue, it is not rigged at all. You have to be able to control time and reality to be a good chess player. You're just not good enough of a player to stop the matrix agents, it's not an excuse.