is Rating overrated in Chess ?

Great Software Professional Organizations create Useful Software for common people.

Great Musicians create memorable Masterpieces.

Same way, Great Chess Players should be known by the quality of games they play. The great thoughts and ideas that is refreshing and enjoyable.

But we often evaluate greatness of a player with their rating. This limited thinking mindset of measuring greatness through the yardstick of rating, is very much pointer of lack of thinking mindset. 

Do you agree? If not, Why?

the rating of a player can increase and decrease depends on how many games they win and lose and the higher accuracy a person play, the greater chance they can win and that lifts their rating. Remember, consistency also matters, if a player got 99 accuracy (meaning that they played a 'masterpiece') doesn't mean that they should be a grandmaster, they could play 33 accuracy for all the other games as well. Lastly, elo doesn't define how good you are, it just helps you to find a player similarly skilled as you. I think that at most your elo should inflate and deflate based on your accuracy ( . 90 accuracy = + 5 more point 33 accuracy = -2 points etc)

Let me put it another way.

There is a near perfect game between two 2800 rated players but it a bland and boring 50 moves draw.

Whereas there is another game between two 2400 rated players which is full of lively action, with its set of inaccuracies from both side and is also a 50 move draw.

Most of the people will ignore the drawn game between 2400 players but will remember the one that is between 2800s.

This I consider as a problem.

yes, if you put it that way, it is. However, this was not the main purpose of rating ( from my perspective). I think the main purpose of rating is too pair someone similar to you. So one way to solve the problem is just to hide ratings of every match. This way, people won't get too stressed and it solves your problem. Even after this, rating still functions in terms of pairing players. So in conclusion rating can still be useful and not overrated if we are able to fix a few things.

Rating, of course, is meant to define skill. No random person can reach such high elo without dedication and skill. This 'ignorance' usually happens due to popularity differences. 2800's games might be spectated by lots of people or be shown on a world stage, while it's more unlikely between 2400's.