DmitriyAS
Auto-translated
Why is the place taken a reference unit?? For determining the winner of a tournament?? I agree. But what does this have to do with the rating calculation? What, are ratings calculated for all athletes, even amateurs? Who needs to calculate ratings for scrubs.
If I'm not mistaken, the rating will ultimately reveal the table of ranks (for some period of time—it's not yet clear which). That is, the rating will reveal the winner of the General championship, which in essence is a tournament. And you ask what the tournament has to do with it.
Therefore, when you speak of professional sports and ratings, we imply that athletes of the PROPER level participate in the competitions, those who have gone through a ton of qualifying stages and won many competitions taking first places. Therefore, when they gather for competitions TOGETHER, their results among themselves will be close in MAINLY. Therefore, the place there has significant importance—if not the PRIMARY one. But in our tournaments, there are no qualifying matches, the composition of participants and the result are unpredictable—therefore, it is exactly here that the place is SUBJECTIVE in nature. Our situation is more like throwing athletes of the lower, middle, and higher leagues into one general pile and forcing them to compete with each other—AND AT THE SAME TIME the RATING will be calculated based on the place taken, moreover, attendance at the competitions is not mandatory, and it may turn out that one from the higher league comes, three from the middle, and the rest from the lower. Now, if we proceed from the place taken, there are immediately a bunch of flaws. Because the attending athletes from the middle and lower leagues will receive a hefty boost to their rating thanks to the absent athletes of the higher league—effectively, they will steal the rating that corresponds to higher league players. But if, in this case, the rating were considered only relative to the result, there would be no flaw. Here, the subjective place would not influence—and the rating would be calculated for each relative to the result of the leader from the higher league. In this case, a flaw can occur only in ONE RARE CASE, when NOT A SINGLE player from the higher league shows up for the competition, which, you'll agree, will be much rarer, if it happens at all. Practice has shown that at any of the Kanigem stages, we received maximum results from the LEADERS!
Firstly, let's do this—keep apples and oranges separate. We have an open tournament, without grading into higher leagues etc., because such a division could lead to disaster... And large sports world, European, or rather continental forums are not infinite.
Or do you want everyone who wishes to try their strength there? This "matter" would drag on for "long years."
As Nikolai Ozerov would say—we don't need that kind of sport! They don't have the capacity to accept everyone and anyone, but we do.
Secondly, the absence of strong participants, if necessary, will lead, as you correctly noted, to their places being taken by others.
Why this bothers you is unclear. No one is irreplaceable. And there is no need to pull the leaders "by the ears" even higher with your rating—they will acquire it themselves. Take a place—get rating points.
Thirdly, it is very likely that the winner based on the results of, say, a year will turn out to be a player who took not the most number of prize places, but received a higher rating of yours (read—created a gap once). This is what you will come to. And no matter how much others "tear their asses off" afterwards, they most likely will not have the opportunity to catch up with the leader.
And are you familiar with the word "competitiveness"? Or, Shurik, is this not our method?
Stage number 7. The top ten differ by only one day!
Sorry, but you are not far-sighted. Let's take the best in the calculation. Plus, we haven't had large maps yet. But who said there won't be any.
You are unjustifiably referring to practice, which can "cease to exist" at any moment, and this moment is obviously not far off.
We are calculating the rating, not determining the winner, as Axe correctly noted. And therefore we will consider both the place and the result!!!
Sorry, but what is the rating for then? If the rating is for the sake of the rating ITSELF, then I "wash my hands" of this. Although it seems that things stand differently.