If all Tournaments were held using a single-elimination bracket, then we could adopt a rating system similar to that used in tennis. However, group stage Tournaments also need to be systematized. Since things are so complicated, let's start with the simplest concepts – from the very beginning. And then look for any errors there. For example: does every match always involve 2 players? If so, we can use that as a starting point. A Tournament is a Tournament, but I think the discussion has become too focused on them! What if a Tournament has only 2 participants? How would it differ from a regular match? And how would it differ from a large Tournament with, say, 16 players? The point is that something like a proportion emerges. However, the values are different: the second player is naturally better than the first. But both are still Tournaments. I think we should consider each match separately, based on the fact that only 2 players are competing. And then calculate each match separately. Moreover, calculating the "strength" of the participants is an extremely thankless and unnecessary task. But many people disagree with this. The importance of the Tournament. A separate mini-formula could be created: each place receives a bonus depending on the position. Although I'm leaning towards a simple number. Starting rating: 0. Because, in theory, it should only increase. Otherwise, a player with no games will always have 100, while another active player who is losing will have a lower rating. This is unfair. P.S. I've already seen on another forum how people struggled with the rating formula. And when the formula worked, I immediately looked at what and how was worked out. And the main points looked something like this. Of course, not everyone will like everything, but it's also impossible to please everyone without exception. Therefore, I will be glad if I can bring you at least a little closer to the right answer.