DmitriyAS
Auto-translated
I don't understand what you don't understand here :) A place in a particular tournament is one thing. And a rating based on the results of several tournaments is another. The participation of players is random. Therefore, the subjectivity of the places occupied by the participants is higher than their ACTUAL results in days. I think Kamikadze understands this and provided you with two posts as examples, where he says that the RESULT must be taken into account when calculating the rating.
1st tournament
Player A - 3 days - 1st place
Player B - 4 days - 2nd place
2nd tournament
Player A - 10 days - 1st place
Player C - 100 days - 2nd place
Player B simply didn't participate in the 2nd tournament.
As a result, according to the system that takes the result into account, Player A will have a higher rating in the final rating, Player B will have a lower rating, and Player C will have a lower rating than Player B. And if only the PLACE is taken into account, Player B and Player C will have the same rating - is this correct in your opinion? Many have already realized that this is not correct, so Kamikadze came up with another system and now calculates according to it, although I don't know if it has been officially adopted.
The fact that you are not familiar with sports does not mean that such systems are not workable. I can explain this to you with an example from football. You propose to award points for winning a match in proportion to the number of goals scored in it. That is, nominally, a victory is worth 3 points, but only the one who won with a larger score will receive them, and the others, excuse me, will receive points proportionally to the leader's result according to the IronAxe system. At the very least, you will be criticized. Moreover, everyone will criticize you: football players, fans, and coaches... Anyone can add to the list.
And the gap in the class of players will not disappear. It has always been and always will be.
What ears :) In my system, the leader is limited to a bar of 100 points. That is, you always get 100 for first place and the leader's jersey in this tournament. All other participants receive a rating relative to the leader's result according to the main criterion of completion (for example, this is speed - days). The leader will not receive an undeservedly higher rating - only if there are NO worthy players in the tournament (this is practically impossible - someone will definitely be there). And in the system that takes into account the place occupied, a very common situation in practice occurs. Players of the middle level do not participate, and the lower level receives a high rating for their TERRIBLE results in days, BUT for good places (due to the absence of some of the players). This is what I call pulling the rating by the ears :) And that's exactly what you're suggesting to do :) Because look at my example. In no way does the second place correspond to a result of 100 days, especially considering that it is 10 times behind the leader in days. This is just funny :) And if you think a little, you will understand everything yourself.
Thank you, but I probably won't support your "little thinking and empty talk," and I physically can't. It's unclear why you are so "concerned" about those who do not participate in the tournament. Think (at least as much as you can) about those who participate, and everything will work out.
Just take and count how many times each player took what place in the tournament. This is essentially what your proposal boils down to :) As Nikolai Ozerov would say, we don't need such hockey :)
Everything brilliant is simple (not for everyone, of course).;)
Now, let's explain it in simple terms.
The season consists of 5 tournaments.
Player A: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2.
Player B: 2, 2, 2, 1, 1.
According to your "system," it is possible that Player B will take 1st place.
Voiceover: here, football players, fans, coaches, and others joined by an unknown Nikolai Nikolaevich, who was very upset by all this...