This system accounts for almost everything.
In your version, you need to consider these points:
1. In Tournaments, the leader should have an upper limit on the number of points they can earn, which should be the same for any online Tournament. In your system, there is practically no limit to the rating that can be earned. The more people participate in a Tournament, the more points a potential leader can accumulate. In another Tournament with fewer participants, the leader receives fewer points for the SAME first place. In my opinion, this flaw will surface sooner or later.
2. A new player should have a real chance to catch up to the leader in the rating, even if it takes a year of persistent and successful games and victories in Tournaments, considering that the leader has already been active on the forum for three years. If a new player wins Tournaments (takes first place), this can only be resolved by aging or by annually resetting the rating (which is not ideal).
In my opinion, these two points have already been resolved in the VGAP system. We are waiting for mathematicians to either confirm or refute this.
Added 3 minutes later
This simple system is not a rating system. This simple system is a way to determine the points for ONE Tournament to identify the winner and distribute the places. It can only be called a rating with a stretch.
1. In ANY Tournament, there are games for 1st and 2nd place, as well as for 3rd and 4th place.
2. Evaluate ONLY 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th places.
3. Give 10 points for first place, 6 for second, 4 for third, and 2 for fourth.
Result: The winner of the Tournaments gains an advantage, allowing them to quickly pull away from their pursuers or, conversely, quickly catch up to their competitor. At the same time, a person who participated and took 4th place, who played the same number of games as the "medalists" (1st, 2nd, 3rd places), also deserves at least two points.
I think this scheme is simple and, at the same time, objective.
