A sharp phrase, once again emphasizing that you are just talking for the sake of talking.

I can just as easily say that after an entire year of discussing systems here (as if you didn't see it :)), you suddenly decided to just chat. :) Present your system and the results of its calculation, at least for the stages of the Kanigema Tournament. I wrote this in my post - otherwise, you just decided to chat for the sake of chatting. Otherwise, arguing with you is pointless if you don't understand what tournament results are, how to determine the winner, and what a Player Rating is. In general, you have already been explained why the one-sided formula was created. By the way, your system, which takes into account only the PLACE, is also flawed.

I meant all the tournaments held on the portal in 2007 (including the Kanigema Tournament), where, as you know, there were also

And if that's what you meant, then throw your example in the trash. :)
---------
Player 1 - 1, 1, 1, 1, 3 places
Player 2 - 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 places
According to the mixed system, it is possible that Player 2 will be the champion (Player 1 showed a weak result for some reason). "Who cares" - these words can be safely applied to the author of such a rating.
---------
What's the point of a champion in all the tournaments on the forum? Who holds such a nomination? The system is suitable for calculating points to determine the winner of the Kanigema Tournament, and Sage has already explained this to you. And this system is also suitable for calculating the General Rating of forum players because it does not identify the forum champion - there is no such nomination, but simply maintains a Player Rating, and this situation has been explained to you again.
It is quite acceptable that the second player's RATING will be higher than the first if player 1 lost one of the tournaments to player 2 by a large margin, even if he won four tournaments against him by a day. And even if player 1's rating is lower, no one is taking away his championship in those four tournaments.

skeletons, and experience. And the trick - I ask the question myself, I answer it myself, it is very suitable for those who rush into battle, having only partially understood the situation. First, I attack (in your case, I bang my head), and then I figure it out. Although, I must admit, you summarized and clarified this complex scheme of the emergence of various rating systems for many.

I rush into battle head-on, but you... from the rear. :)

First of all, I will clarify for you, who is unintelligent in every sense, that I am advocating for a universal rating system that can both "reward" for the current tournament and "summarize" the results of several. Your
one-sided, single-tournament system does not have this quality. For

Listen, you, multifaceted and many-sided :) You've already made so many digs in this post with hints of unintelligibility, although it's obvious that you yourself don't understand. Because, after the discussion of the VDV system, no one on the forum suggested a rating system that would take into account only the PLACE. Will you continue to insist that you are the most intelligent, and everyone on the forum is an idiot?

It seems that the rustling of toilet paper can be heard. The one-sided rating from IronAxe has sunk, you know where. Unfortunately, I must

And Dmitry AS's system has not even surfaced from there. :)

I wish you to acquire these two important qualities (including for communication on this resource), who knows, maybe you will bring order to your ruined Carthage.

Likewise. :)

The system that takes into account both the place and the difference in results is not suitable for calculating the rating based on the results of several tournaments, since the following situation may arise, when, based on the results of 5 tournaments:
Player 1 - 1, 1, 1, 1, 3 places
Player 2 - 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 places

You've annoyed me with your stupid example, but you constantly modify it. Reread the posts in that thread with my examples, where I showed the flaws in taking into account only the PLACE. I won't explain it to you again, you're smart enough. It's not advisable to throw pearls before swine, you know. :)

If you offer a system that can eliminate the indicated drawback, then we can talk about something else, connecting logic and common sense as much as possible;).
I do not see any way out of this situation, except to calculate the rating according to the places taken. Unless we reconsider the percentage of the place and the result.

So, describe your system and calculate the rating according to it - maybe then you will understand the flaws of such a system that takes into account only the place. This drawback was discussed a year ago, and that's why the VDV system was rejected for the rating - we started with this, but moved on. If there were no flaws, no one would have made further improvements. You are suggesting that I eliminate the flaws in my system - I know them. You eliminate the flaws in yours first - but it's harder for you - you don't see them at all. And I'll tell you that the flaws in your system are even worse. :)

Thank you again for the history.
And one more thing - a lot does not mean quality, it will come with time, who knows, maybe it will come to you too. I look forward to the next exacerbation..., that is, the next post:).

And you're pretending to be concise - the sister of talent. :) Your example, which supposedly takes everything into account between several tournaments, is stupid because you suggest not paying attention to some players missing tournaments, which speaks to your "foresight" and predictability of flaws for various systems. Well, let the post be long, but if you can't understand anything briefly. Never mind, especially for Dmitry AS, one more time. :)
My example is a little more complicated, and I gave it earlier:

Tournament 1
Player A - 1 day - 1st place
Player B - 2 days - 2nd place
Player C - 3 days - 3rd place

Tournament 2
Player A again 1 day - 1st place
Player D - 1000 days - 2nd place

Based on the results of several tournaments according to your super-correct system, we will get that Player D has the same rating as Player B, and also outperforms Player C. Who needs such a rating for your lame dog? Now imagine a bunch of tournaments and the inconsistency of their composition. Your rating, which takes into account only the place, will mess things up. :)

Dmitry, my advice is to carefully study the topics first and not think that you are the smartest. Otherwise, you will just be the funniest.