On-line rating (discussion)

I've written about this before, in some thread, but I don't remember which one. I'll just repeat my thoughts now. In our community (about 8 years ago, when I was a member of a clan), we had a ranking system. It's no secret that in online games (strategies) where 1v1 battles are organized, the main criterion for a player's skill is the minimum time it takes to defeat an opponent. Therefore, in the ranking, this should be the dominant factor. Accordingly, we created a ranking system that worked according to the following principle: 1. Each player joining the system was given 1000 points. 2. For winning against a "stronger" opponent, the player was awarded X points, and the loser lost X points. 3. For winning against a "weaker" opponent, the player was awarded Y points, and the loser lost Y points. 4. X points were always greater than Y points. 5. There was also an adjustment based on the game time, i.e., X1 and Y1 increased by M points depending on the time frame. In other words, the faster the battle was completed, the greater the value of M. Note: X = X1 + M and Y = Y1 + M. From all of the above, it follows that: a. It is more beneficial to win against "stronger" players than "weaker" ones. And losing to a "weaker" player is the most painful. b. If you put in the effort, a "newcomer" (with 1000 points) can always (with a 100% probability) overtake the leader of the ranking, even if they have already scored at least 100,000 points. Sincerely, K0Lb@zzeR. P.S. There's no need to reinvent the wheel; everything is already ready and tested. And it works 100%.