Why the current system forces account Smurfing

Hello, I am ChessBadger360.

I have had over two dozen accounts on Chess.com (not at the same time, old accounts are deleted prior to making a new account), and my highest sustainable rating was in the 1500's on this site (over all those accounts.

My first account had over 10k games played, and most of my other accounts had over 1k games played (except the last couple that usually got deleted after 500 or so).

I only play rated games because I dislike playing engines and cheating would be easy for unrated games as they are not monitored like rated games are.

That being said, the reason I have had so many accounts is because I am a smurf. After my rating hits a certain level (i.e. games start to become unfun due to difficulty) I have effectively 5 options;

A.) Delete my account and create a brand new one starting back at 200 or 400 or whatever.

B.) Smurf my account back down to a rating pool I enjoy playing in.

C.) Git Gud

D.) Join the Cheater's Club

E.) Power thru a dozen or so games until I lose enough I can start having fun again. However, after a few wins I will be right back to this point.

Recently it occurred to me that this situation is absurd.

The matching system as it exists is archaic.

You win your score goes up, games become incrementally harder.

You lose it goes down, and the games become incrementally easier.

But if you want to play chess, but at approximately the same level, regardless of result, you are screwed.

I do not approve of cheating, I do not have the time or desire to Git Gud, so that leaves smurfing. Which is annoying.

Wouldn't it be better if a new pairing system existed concurrently with the current system that allowed players to voluntarily subscribe to specific "rating pools" so they could be matched up only with players in those specific pools. Wins in that pool would be capped, thus you could never exceed a specific rating no matter how many games you win.

So, for example, if we arbitrarily create a rating pool for "800 - 899" rated players, then if you entered that pool you would only ever play 800 - 899 rated players who also subbed to that pool. 

No matter how many games you won in that pool, your rating would be capped at 899; this means that if you want to increase your rating you have to voluntarily sub to a new pool, say 900 - 999.

 As it stands, if a player wants to only play opponents between, say, 1000 - 1200, that player would have to smurf/create new accounts periodically, which is absurd.

In most, if not all, modern computer games players are able to choose a difficulty setting that fits their tastes. Why not chess?

In  regards to smurfing's evil cousin, cheating, I theorize that such a system would help reduce the need to cheat that some players obviously feel.

In today's universe of social media, instant communication, and lack of privacy I suspect that some part of the cheating problem is related to the fact that players are being forced to play at an ever increasing level of difficulty until they reach a point where they start losing.

This is as the system was intended to work; and competitively it is ideal. However, for casual games I believe it is lacking as it fails to keep such games "casual" by eventually, and inevitably, making the players become more competitive.

If someone wants to play chess, but is constantly under pressure to "git gud" eventually they will have to make the previously listed choice - and cheating is easily the simplest on that list, and even if caught a new account can be made (which is also a method for smurfing), so there really is no drawback.

Now I am not defending cheating or excusing it; I am just saying that the current rating system encourages cheating in an indirect manner by not having a method by which players can "choose a difficulty level" and forces players to participate in an ever-increasingly difficult game.

I, personally, choose the smurfing route because I absolutely hate playing engines and would not subject an opponent in a casual game to that ordeal. That sucks beans.

Anyway, that is just my thoughts, and it is probable my conclusions and logic is flawed, and it is probable I am an idiot. That being said - I don't see any other smurfs speaking out as to why they smurf or ways to improve the chess experience so figured I would.

Cheers