Player rating for tournaments across all installments of Heroes.

The first component is yours, not mine. This is a non-linear rating that you suggested to everyone a month ago. I just brought it to a more correct form in the form of an oscillator. Please be consistent in your statements.

I am consistent - I am saying that the first component, in my understanding, has more significance than the second. The first component will be 0.05 for a player with 1000 days, and what will the second be:

R2(n)=100-100/(N-1)*(n-1),
where
R2(n) is the linear rating of the player
N is the number of places assigned (usually coincides with the number of players, but not always)
n is the place of the player being considered

R2(1)=100-100/(3-1)*(1-1)=100
R2(2)=100-100/(3-1)*(2-1)=50
R3(3)=100-100/(3-1)*(3-1)=0

I don't understand what is linear and what is not. And I see that a guy who doesn't know how to play, but accidentally took second place, would get a rating of 0.05 in my system. The leader is 100.

And with your correction, the leader also has 100, and the newbie gets a rating of 25. That's a quarter of the maximum! And the guy doesn't know how to play at all - isn't that clear from the example? It's just that there were no strong players between them by chance.

Don't make unsubstantiated claims. I ask you again to indicate what exactly bothers you in the latest version of the rating. Or don't say anything at all.

I would rather play a game right now if I hadn't promised VDV to calculate the rating for his tournaments. But the option I proposed is simple. And now everything is complicated, although in my opinion it is more correct, but I said what I am not happy with. I don't know why you don't understand the example I gave. I am not considering a real calculation in this case. And by the way, you used to agree with this statement of mine, and now you don't remember?
What should I look for in this topic to quote your post?

Added after 8 minutes

And if the second place is also the last, then the rating can be ignored. I also agree with this.

P.s. by the way, a player who took last place and is 1000 days behind the leader will get a rating close to zero. And this is also visible if you put the values in the table.

And if the second place with 1000 days is not the last, there is also a third place with 1001 :)
Third place will get almost 0, second place will get about 25, the leader will get 100.
Is this correct? Yes or no?

It seems to me that something is wrong. These two components should not be added together and divided by two, but rather some kind of ratio between them should be used, so as not to completely nullify the first component.

And one more thing. Even comparing the approximation in days to the leader is not entirely correct. What if we assume that any map can be completed in ONE day! And compare each result to the leader's result relative to this number :)