chess.com rating system

I think chess.com rating system should be changed because it very difficult go get a good elo rating when you start low. Each victory gives you hardly 10 points. To gain 200 elo points, you have to beat 20 consecutive opponents...which is impossible.

I also think that when you have reached a level like 1600, 1700, 1800 etc, it should not be possible for you to get below. My best rating in bullet here was not far from 1900 points. Now I am currently at 1600+. I play a lot, and sometimes I lose a lot. When I think about all the games i have to play to get back a correct rating, I already feel tired...

(Personal opinion below, and does not necessarily represent the views of chess.com management or anyone else with authority or insight.)

Some of your points, taken one at a time:

"... very difficult go (sic) get a good elo rating when you start low."

Most federations and chess rating processes assert a value for an unknown player before any rated games are played. The choice of 1200 here is not radically dissimilar from the values used elsewhere. True, if chess.com knew for a fact that you had an established rating much different than 1200, it could use that value as your starting rating - but the burden of processing/vetting such information is just not worth it, in my view.

"Each victory gives you hardly 10 points. To gain 200 elo points, you have to beat 20 consecutive opponents ... which is impossible."

The rating system used here is Glicko and at the very start of your rating determination, the adjustments are much, much larger than what you state here. The RD factor at the start is 300+, so initially large adjustments are made to try to find your true strength. Yes, after you have played a lot of games, the movement in much slower. Beating very high rated opponents will net you more points. Not playing in that ratings group for several weeks will raise your RD. So, there are ways to do "the impossible."

"... when you have reached a level like 1600, 1700, 1800 etc, it should not be possible for you to get below."

The USCF (United States Chess Federation) has class floors which is something like what you speak of here. You can recommend to chess.com that they adopt a system like that. My view: bad idea.

And finally ...

"My best rating in bullet here was not far from 1900 points. Now I am currently at 1600+. I play a lot, and sometimes I lose a lot. When I think about all the games I have to play to get back a correct rating, I already feel tired ..."

Who is to say that your "correct" rating is 1900? Apparently, it might be closer to 1600+, because that is what you are rated here, now. It is not unusual for one's rating to move + or - 100 to 200 points, if we recall that Arpad Elo designed his rating system such that 200+ points was roughly 1 sigma standard deviation about the mean.

Let's remember that a rating system is simply there to give you an indication of your strength and to use that to make good pairings in events. In Internet chess it means no more than that for sure.

 Imagine that, your rating goes down when you lose a lot.  How unfair.  Maybe we should just make it so that nobody's rating ever decreases at all, but just the winner of each game has their rating increase.  Then we could all be 2000+ rated players.  Some of us could even be 10000+ rated.

@Drawmaster : I regularly beat 1800+ players here. I have even beaten players with a higher rank than that, but instead of gaining 10 points, I gain...12. The difference is not obvious to me.

I can play 2000 players because they don't want to play players under 1800 or 1700. So how can I then increase my elo if I only play against 1700 or so players ?

I haven't understood your second point (when you say that not playing in the groups will raise my RD). Why is it a bad idea to have class floors ? 

A little more on the two points: a) not playing, and b) class floors:

a) Your rating adjustment is a factor or several things: your opponent, the outcome, and the RD (Rating Deviation). If your RD is large, then larger adjustments are made in any given situation. If small, then smaller. Playing infrequently or not at all for some period of time makes the RD grow. At that point, winning games with the accompanying larger RD will raise your rating by more points. Of course, the downside is obvious: not playing.

b) I personally think that rating floors simply inflate ratings. Just my view. I could be wrong.

Ok Thx for your explanation