With your correction, the leader also has 100, and the other player gets 25 rating points. That's a quarter of the maximum! And the guy clearly doesn't understand – is that not obvious from the example? It's just that, by chance, there weren't any strong players among them.
According to your system, the leader's super-result will determine everything, and he managed to do something amazing on a map where most people took 1000 days or more. And that happens. And that's why all the other players got zero rating because of the existence of one super-player. This is pure imbalance because the random probability of such players appearing on the map SHOULD NOT reset the tournament bar. I've said this ten times already.
And the randomness here is the appearance of a "dinosaur" in the tournament, not the fact that a player "randomly" took second place... The player competes not only with the leader but also with all the other participants in the tournament. And he beat ALL the others, earning a deserved rating. And the more participants he beat, the higher the rating. But in your calculation, it doesn't matter how many participants this player overtook.
Let's imagine that 100 people played in the tournament, and they all did worse than him, i.e., took more than 1000 days. According to your system, all 99 people (except the leader) will get a zero rating. Did they not compete with each other? And does the player who took SECOND place out of 100 players not deserve a significant rating? I'd like to see how you would present the results of such a tournament, where one monster appeared and took 100 points, and you would give the rest zeros, even though there was a real battle between them because the map was really difficult... Would you tell them that they don't know how to play? And your result, by the way, could be among them...
Should I show you a multi-month map that the experts created in 8-10 days? One such tournament would be enough to kill everyone's desire to play for a result that they don't deserve. And you will only understand this when a dozen tournaments have passed, and what we are discussing theoretically appears in reality.
I'm very sorry that all your theoretical models focus on the problem of a weak player getting an undeserved rating. And why don't you consider the opposite situation, when a worthy player, having put a lot of effort into the tournament and beating almost all the opponents, gets zero according to your method? We are talking about a general balance of calculation that takes into account the interests of all players in all tournaments, and your arguments are specific cases, unlikely events.
And I'm not against giving a beginner a little rating "for free" if, in doing so, I can preserve the tournament rating for a player who really put a lot of effort into completing the game and achieved a significant result. But you would give everyone zero. Because of dogma!
That's all.
