IronAxe
Auto-translated
Exactly.
Here's another example (or rather, a counter-example): the same tournament, the same 50 players. The first round took 10 days, the next ones took eleven (or ten players took eleven days, seven took twelve, and the rest took fifteen, so you wouldn't say I'm giving an unrealistic example). What do we have? The players who finished in the same amount of time competed based on a secondary criterion, and someone, having put in the effort, showed their skill and outperformed everyone in their group. The question is, why shouldn't they be eligible for a bonus?
After all, all players will be sorted by rank, but 2nd place and 11th place will receive the same rating according to the Iron system. This is also unfair.
The oscillator is the average between the rating by days (the Iron system) and the rating by rank... Two equally valid reference points have found a compromise in this method. Both rank and result influence the rating calculation... Explain to me, dissenting gentlemen, what is so controversial here? Please be objective. Phrases like "the oscillator halves the rating of the last place!" are not serious... This is not a minus, but an incentive to develop and not be at the bottom of the table... And in general, losing 2-3 points won't really bother an outsider, I think... 5 or 3 in the end, it doesn't make a difference. But at least we solve the problem of taking into account the secondary criterion. Iron doesn't take it into account at all. Which is more important?