On-line rating (discussion)

Points should definitely be deducted for a loss – otherwise, there will be a cumulative system where the person with more free time, and therefore more games played, has a greater chance of becoming the leader. IMO.

That's what I was saying.

2. A fixed number of points should be added or subtracted for a win/loss.

I also suggested this, but with the caveat that it depends on who you defeated (strong/weak) and who you lost to (strong, weak).

P.S. IMO, with a bonus system, it's more rational, because, for example, in the first matches, everyone has the same rating, and it's unclear what to do with the bonus!

I forgot to add that if players have the same rating, the rating increase is calculated as the average between X and Y, i.e., A = (X + Y) / 2 + M.

I'm more interested in these points:
1. Will the number of games be limited, and if so, how?
2. Is there an obligation to play with all participants, and what is the scheme for selecting opponents in sequence?

In our system, there was no limit because if you play well, you can become the leader with a minimum number of games; you can even just start "eliminating" the leaders. That is, you play against the person in 1st place, then you play against the person in 1st place again (because the person in 1st place may already have dropped to 2nd place after your game, etc.).

Forgot to add that the "speed" of defeating an opponent should either not be taken into account at all or be taken into account as a secondary factor (e.g., distribution of places in case of a tie in points), but it should not affect the number of points/bonus in any way.
Otherwise, there will be a deliberate interest in delaying the defeat (even if it is inevitable).

No one survived longer than the time allotted for the opponent; that's how you demonstrate your skill by defeating the opponent in the shortest possible time. You will earn a bonus for this; the faster you figure out how to kill the opponent, the bigger the bonus you will get; it's all in your hands, as they say.

Of course, the system could be made even more complex, for example, by introducing a Ladder game, i.e., to get into the ladder, you need to win 10 battles. And also, the Ladder game can be divided into classes, from 1 to 10, when you move into the Ladder game, you get into 10th class, to get into 9th class, you need to win 10 battles against a 10th class player, and so on (only the number of wins increases in the form of a progression). But we didn't do that; this implementation requires a lot of people, around 10,000, and they all need to play this game.

Sincerely, K0Lb@zzeR.