Rating

I think the rating you get for winning/losing should also be based on the accuracy of the game, not just how good/ bad your opponent is. There should be a reward for winning a game with 80% or more accuracy. This could be a new beta thing, where beta players can test this out. But I do believe that this is a good idea. If there are any flaws in this, I would like to hear them, and maybe I might come up with answers for them.
Thank you!

It seems ok except when 2 alt acounts play with eachother it's easier to gain rating

What is alt? If one person is significantly more highly rated than the other, chess.com already has a rule that they don't receive as much rating if they beat them.

the same person with 2 acounts. If you make the acount the same rating it will become easier for the person to gain elo but other than that it seems like a good idea

alt is alternate

The rating is not a score, it's a mathematical value used to compute the statistical probability one has to win against someone else knowing their own rating. Injecting parameters such as "accuracy" doesn't make sense.

I agree with this.

the problem with that is that it might punish you for trying to play in a certain style that the engine considered inaccurate and encourages you to trade off everything and get into a drawish endgame until the 50 move rule to inflate accuracy

Alt accounts may not play each other, it is against the rules.

i think this can be a good idea but i also see why chess.com will not add this

it's in the rules that they cant, but what if you dont declare your alt acount?

Then all your accounts will be closed for abuse when cc finds out.

At first it seems like a good idea, but if you think a little bit you realize it really isn't. @Ximoon explained it good. Sorry, no offense intended.

Меня нынешний рейтинг устраивает. Я бы только давал при старте не выбор, а всем одинаково, и пусть бы это значение было - ноль рейтинга

Your good, I just wanted to put this idea into the chess.com world, maybe in the future chess.com can find the solutions to these problems.

If you let the model take accuracy as an input in addition to the unknown base strength parameter, and track players' typical accuracy scores in games, you could still get a model that both solves backwards to give ratings updates (which would now depend on accuracy) and makes predictions of game outcomes when given ratings and typical accuracy scores.

However, doing this in a naive way would probably make the strength/ rating metric less useful, since you would probably mostly end up using accuracy to calculate the expected game outcomes, and rating would mostly become a metric of whatever accuracy didn't already account for- something like how bad your blunders were, perhaps (so someone who played perfectly 99.8% of the time but always lost a queen when blundering would get a low rating compared to a player who makes many small inaccuracies). Trying to fix that by messing with how accuracy is measured and giving something like "percentile of accuracy the player got compared to the distribution they normally get" as an input rather than accuracy directly could solve some of that, but then your score might go up less when you won especially accurate games, since the high accuracy made your result less surprising.

There are a dozen other things you could try past that point to keep the rating meaning intact, but it would be finicky, potentially prone to manipulation, and wouldn't ultimately add that much.

What the original poster meant was probably something more like "give a 'game performance' rating guess-the-Elo style with a tool like Maia, and update my rating towards that number as well as with the standard Elo/ Elo-alternative formula after a game." I actually don't see a problem with that general idea. It might cause ratings to converge faster as long as the Elo-guesser model was good, say if a player left the online scene (or just their account) for a time and gained a couple hundred rating points between chesscom games. It would make cheaters' ratings climb even more quickly, but chesscom already has systems in place for refunding points and such, so presumably any newly added potential for abuse from this change is something that they could handle.

Then again, there's the question of what the benefit is. Players whose ratings increased because of it might like it, but I doubt they would like it tanking their hard-earned rating after a particularly sloppy game.

Ні, я не розумію чому

I agree with this idea

I was disagreeing with his idea, just in case you didn't understand.

oooooh, that is why i see so many closes cause of abuse, its not actual abuse, its just cheating and unfairness