Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

The problem of finding the optimal rating can be solved in two mutually exclusive ways.

Well, basically, yes :)

The first, which takes the form of an argument and is what we have here—consists of searching for flaws and errors in the opponent's method in order to show one's own advantages against that backdrop... Moreover, in most cases, the advantage is only visible against the flaws of the opponent's system, but is not actually such in reality. Everyone understands this, they just pretend otherwise... :)

I will explain why I chose the first method.
1. It is impossible to devise a perfect system; I believe you also leaned towards this thought somewhere in this thread.
2. To get as close to the ideal as possible, you need to account for a bunch of parameters, each of which will introduce its own errors (the most errors are introduced by the rank/position occupied). To eliminate the errors, we come up with accounting for new parameters and new methods of calculating the rating, which introduce their own errors, and so on.
3. One can delve into this indefinitely. Therefore, defending the position of a simple, clear, and effective system is easiest to do using the first method.

The second option consists of searching for the advantages of the opponent's method and linking them to one's own... And vice versa. This is teamwork. Until we adopt this method of finding a solution, there will be no point...

Well, the advantages are highly doubtful. However, I am not saying that I am against using any other parameters. But I don't fit into a team because all other systems include the occupied RANK in their calculations, and no one wants to see that RANK is subjective, while the result in DAYS is objective. The situation where a weak player ends up as a leader in a tournament and their result is far from the limit on a given map is negligibly small, which we see in practice at least in Kanigem's Tournaments, or let's say the leader might trail the map limit by 1-2 days maximum. But the situation of the random presence/absence of players of a certain level, especially considering different versions of Heroes, happens quite often. Therefore, ideally, imho for me, RANK cannot be considered when calculating the rating; use any other parameters, but then the accounting will be so complex (for example, evaluating map difficulty—who would take that on?) that it'll be a nightmare :) The most I can agree to, imho, is that if RANK is to be considered, its influence on the result in days should not be the dominant parameter over DAYS. Therefore, I consider Kamikaze's system with the innovation of accounting for the ratio of days to rank possible for further development. But how did he actually come to it? Not thanks to reading our discussions and arguments using the first method? :)

Added after 20 minutes

I've been trying to explain to you for a long time that the same difference in skill level on different maps will result in different gaps.

Suppose you are comparing two players, both played in two tournaments. Considering the RANK they occupied, and in a situation where other players wedged themselves between them in one of the tournaments, wouldn't this difference widen the gaps and distort the actual state of their rating? Meanwhile, we remember that their results in days have a constant character reflecting their overall level of play.

Meaning I should now be considered a strong player in the 1s ??? Mda, and I, naive as I am, thought I was playing it for the second time in my life.

Well, let's consider Zingel. Why the hell should I care who plays what. There is a result—get a rating. And I believe that in the sixth stage, the map wasn't simple, for example. First of all, besides a map-reveal cheat, I have no reconnaissance tools in version 1. We should have noticed a hole in the mountain—we didn't. Others did. You claim you played for a couple of hours—maybe you're lying. How and who will check this? Well, I played for a day, so what? By the way, I wouldn't say Zingel's result was bad. 12 days or so. A gap of 5 days from the leader? Well, it's been worse :)

What can I say about AmberSoler's withdrawal: "The poet's soul could not take it"

Well, if anything, we'll help carry out what's left :)

There was no personal attack on my part, since I practically quoted your own opinion, namely
(see discussion of the 1st VK stage, post 314). But to be completely correct, I will add that I believe if the Prophet had played, I would have also been beaten, after first removing the tiara.

You need to quote more accurately :) Okay, drop it.(Kyle: Thank you very much.) However, you didn't comment on the example with player Zingel. Therefore, I cannot be sure that the Prophet would have constantly held first place. Let him come and prove me wrong through play every time. After all, things happen in the game. By the way, I think Zingel gave me the helmet last time. Such are the twists of fate :) By the way, Kyle did too. However, he didn't play the 6th stage. And so what? Following your logic, he should just be given a hundred points. Had he been in the stage, would his result have been among the leaders? Or would he have been next to Zingel again? It's unlikely that anything definite can be said here.

That's it, let's discuss Kamikaze's rating instead.

Well, go ahead. What ratio of days to rank did you settle on? :)