Alternative rating.

I have already expressed my opinion, and I will add:
The winner of the tournament may not be the "strongest," but the "luckiest," and it would simply be unfair to reward the "winner" with a 1000-point advantage over their competitors, who may be lower in "level" but whose advantage should not be expressed in a 1000-point difference.

These are just words, and I am hinting at real past tournaments. Therefore, I repeat the question: give me at least one tournament where a lucky "weak" player became the winner?! I am not playing in tournaments right now, but I know how difficult it is to win, even with the factor of randomness. Why should the winner be ranked lower than someone who has played a hundred games against beginners, is in position #1, and is enjoying life?