That's why I'm a bit aggressive and skeptical about all sorts of continuations and innovations. Look at what's happening. There are countless systems now. There are tons of tables with calculations for just one Tournament. The organizers still haven't said which system will be used as a basis for this Tournament. And suggestions keep pouring in, confusing the common folk, who are already in shock about this whole rating thing. So, please understand me correctly. If you want to prove something and show it, then calculate using your own system and show the tables while you still can. If not, then why create hype around an already hyped topic?
This, unfortunately, does not justify your aggression. Well, I won't dwell on that.
I am also strongly against double standards, and we need to choose one thing. This issue has been left to drift, and that's a fact.
You yourself created the hype. If you had also used your head for this... ;) I will propose my system in the appropriate place (read: at the right time and in the right place). I think it's pointless to push it everywhere.
I've already tested the ground with your help.
Added 10 minutes ago
You simply don't want to consider that the stability of results can be shown both by the ranking and by the results themselves. In my opinion, the results are more accurate, and this is evident both from the exaggerated examples given and from the calculations already made for the tables from the Canighem Tournament, which were calculated using DIFFERENT systems.
I will give you another example with three Tournaments (note: without unnecessary fuss).
Player 1: 1,1,4.
Player 2: 3,3,1.
According to your system, it is possible that Player 2 will be ranked higher after 3 Tournaments.
Then what do you call stability!? If you continue to confuse concepts, you will much more confuse yourself and others - which is what you are very afraid of, explaining your aggression - than another rating system would.
