Alternative rating.

If you're going to switch to something, it should be something reliable, worthwhile, and deserving of attention and respect.

Dude, can you answer my questions about this rating? I'm just not getting it right now – what makes this rating better, and how do you manage it?

The most accurate rating can be obtained based on tournaments in which players of roughly equal strength compete.

Oops, inconsistency #1.

The Elo rating system is based on the assumption that the strength of each chess player can be represented as a probabilistic variable, following a normal distribution.

Well, I "got lucky" – I have a background in this, and I can understand something from these words. But there are other people here too. Can you explain it yourself? Because I suspect you don't really understand it...

The calculation of a specific player's rating based on the results of a tournament is based on comparing the number of points they scored with the expected number of points, predicted based on their rating.

How will you predict a player's likely position in a tournament, how many games they lost, how many they won, etc.? There will be so many arguments about this...

If, at the end of the tournament, the number of points scored is greater than the predicted value, then the rating of that player increases.

Another inconsistency... 95% of our games are not tournaments. What about them?

Everything is clearly explained in the links.

I just quoted the only Russian link, and you can't answer my questions. You just inserted something complicated, like you were trying to avoid answering, assuming that people will just swallow it. You could even find something in Chinese... No, answer for what you say =)

Well, about 20 people have joined. When vbn appears on the forum, I'll discuss the table with him. And to you, dear forum members, a question – what should we do with tournaments? In principle, awarding victory points with coefficients for a separate tournament is a good idea, but points should be deducted for a loss without coefficients =)

To get to that point, you need to sink to the bottom of the table, losing to everyone, even not the top players.

Such players can learn something even from players with a rating of 16++. Personally, for me, this was another incentive to improve my skills in order to play with even stronger opponents.