better matching around 820-1100 range

It seems that 820ish to the 1100 range covers from 40th percentile to 70th percentile in rankings and with lots of new players entering at at 1000 who either belong lower or higher rating skill between one opponent to the next can be enormous. I feel bad absolutely destroying a new player who does not yet have the hang of the game. And at the same time get frustrated when I get destroyed by a new player that is clearly well above my skill level. And I feel ratings should reflect that. My suggestion to fix the matching system by having it not only to match by rating but also number of games played and win loss ratio that way if your new and winning every match and should be a higher rating than you are your less disruptive to players not on your skill level at a rating near where you entered.

I hope that chess.com has seen this, it continues to be a problem where I face 4-10 new players in a row who have played less than 350games and beat them then all of a sudden find my self 100 rating higher and facing opponents that clearly are not on my skill level. And conversely the same happens with more skilled new players and my rating drops 100 points below where it should be and I’m facing people again who are below my skill level, I love a good close game even a draw, but they seem rare due to how new players enter the ratings system. I feel like being -40-50th percentile just makes matching terrible because that’s where a lot of new players end up. Maybe a system of like 5 games against a computer of ranging difficulty to see what rating they should enter at may be more appropriate.

 

Players choose their skill level at account creation, the New to chess and Beginner are the only ones that start at or below 1000. The other three options are 1200+.

 

With the Glicko rating system players will quickly reach an appropriate rating; it doesn't really take many games either to get fairly close.

Uhhh it doesn’t work I would not be posting if it did. looking at most peoples ratings graph almost all I have looked at including my own show the player entering over 400points if not more over their actual skill level for the most part most when joining by the step decline right after joining. Also regardless of rating there is a noticeable difference in play style of someone who has played 100 games vs 500 vs 1000+ games. My point is it’s possible by shear number of newer players in this range for a new player(has played less than 500 games) to maintain a higher rating than what they probably should be. This comes back to what I have already stated about feeling like my rating is getting inflated by playing a bunch of newer players in a row then facing a more experienced player.

They won't be able to maintain a higher rating if their results don't reflect it. It doesn't take a long time for a player's rating to settle into a 200 point range. Certainly less than 500 games and probably less than 100.

I continue to see this problem I again having 3 of 4 entry options covering 1200+ which is the top 30% of players seems silly. How does matching think it’s a good idea to match someone who’s played 17games winning only 30% and 50 rating below me against me when I have played 3000+ games and win 48% of my games. That’s just a terrible matchup!