In the literature, I've mostly seen two quasicategories coming from $\text{Ch}\_R$:


1. By considering $\text{Ch}\_R$ with weak equivalences $\mathcal W = \text{quasi-isomorphisms}$, we can consider its Dwyer-Kan localization $L^H(\text{Ch}\_R)$, a simplicial category. Then, from the Quillen equivalence $$|-|:\text{sSet}\_{\text{Joyal}}\leftrightarrows\text{sSet-Cat}\_{\text{Bergner}}:N\_\Delta,$$
we can define, taking a fibrant replacement if necessary,
$$
N\_\Delta(L^H(\text{Ch}\_R))\in\text{quasicategories}
$$
2. In the Dold-Kan equivalence $N:\text{sAb}\leftrightarrows\text{Ch}\_R:\Gamma.$, $\Gamma$ is a monoidal functor (between cartesian categories), thus it induces a functor
$$
\Gamma\_\*:\text{Ch}\_R\text{-Cat}\to \text{sAb-Cat}.
$$
The underlying set of a simplicial abelian group is a Kan complex thus
$$
N\_\Delta(\Gamma\_\*(\text{Ch}\_R))\in\text{quasicategories}
$$



> 
> Are the quasicategories $N\_\Delta(L^H(\text{Ch}\_R)$ and $N\_\Delta(\Gamma\_\*(\text{Ch}\_R)$ equivalent? Is this trivial?
> 
> 
> 


Related: [how to make the category of chain complexes into an $\infty$-category](https://mathoverflow.net/q/93969/123439).



Two $\infty$-categories of chain complexes
The two categories you describe are not equivalent in the fashion that you hope.


No matter what kind of simplicial category $C$ is, the quasicategory $N\_\Delta(C)$ has an explicit description of its homotopy category: namely, it has the same objects as $C$, and
$$
Hom\_{hN\_\Delta C}(X,Y) = \pi\_0 Hom\_C(X,Y).
$$
(This is true even if we need to take a fibrant replacement of $C$ first.)


Consider first case (1). Whenever $C$ is a category with a subcategory $W$ of weak equivalences, the Dwyer-Kan localization $L^H C$ has morphism spaces that are explicitly described: the 0-simplices are composites of morphisms in $C$ with formal inverses of morphisms in $C$, and the 1-simplices are natural transformations ("hammocks") built out of commutative diagrams involving these morphisms in $C$ or $W$. Taking $\pi\_0$, we find that the homotopy category is formed by taking the morphisms in $C$ and formally inverting the morphisms in $W$: it is the localization.
$$
hN\_\Delta L^H C \cong C[W^{-1}]
$$


Now consider case 2. If $C$ is a dg category, then we can also be explicit about the simplices in $Hom\_{\Gamma\_\* C}(X,Y)$. Namely, a 0-simplex is a 0-cycle $f$ in the Hom-complex $\underline{Hom}\_C(X,Y)$, and an edge from $f$ to $g$ is a 1-chain $h$ in $\underline{Hom}\_C(X,Y)$ with $\partial h = g-f$. Taking $\pi\_0$, we find that the homotopy category is formed by taking the morphisms in $C$ and modding out by the relation of chain homotopy equivalence
$$
Hom\_{hN\_\Delta \Gamma\_\* C}(X,Y) \cong H\_0 \underline{Hom}\_C(X,Y).
$$
This makes it the "chain homotopy category".




---


Applied to $Ch(R)$, the first construction is the derived category $D(R)$, and the second construction is the chain homotopy category $K(R)$. There is a natural functor $K(R) \to D(R)$, but it is not an equivalence: for example, there is a map of complexes from $(\dots \to 0 \to \Bbb Z \to \Bbb Z \to 0)$ to $(\dots \to 0 \to 0 \to \Bbb Z/2 \to 0)$ that is a quasi-isomorphism; there are no nonzero maps of chain complexes in the opposite direction in $Ch(\Bbb Z)$ and hence no nonzero maps in $K(\Bbb Z)$ either.




---


I believe that if you restrict to the subcategory of "cofibrant" complexes (e.g. bounded-below complexes of projectives) then you get an equivalence. Most of the versions of this result that I know, however, are for simplicial model categories (which $Ch\_R$ is not), and so I don't have a reference handy.


