AmberSoler
Auto-translated
ATTENTION! An example of how the second component in the rating formula affects the result, which depends on the position occupied in the tournament.
However, it is impossible to call its application conditions a "solution to the problem in a general form." And the caveats "all the same conditions applied, but the leaders didn't show up again" suggest that the specific example is contrived and tailored to achieve a desired effect.
For any tournament table, it is possible to simulate conditions under which its result will cause confusion among "spectators." However, these spectators still need to be explained what the probability is of exactly THAT scenario occurring. The scenario you proposed has a non-zero probability, but it is vanishingly small. :)
Now, I will refer you to my post #193 in this thread, where the situation is analyzed in detail, and it has a significantly higher probability of occurring than the one you indicated.
It is very easy to simulate it in the table that you have in front of you. Let's assume that all players participated in the second tournament, but the leader managed to complete the map much faster, and the others showed their results. Simply take my original calculation and assign the leader a map completion time of, for example, 5 days. And your first coefficient will give all the other players a rating in the range of 1-10. The underdog will be only 5.7 points behind your result... And if you add aging, your result will bring you 2.0 points for the tournament, and the underdog will get 0.4 points! :) All the other players will be evenly distributed between you. Calculate it yourself. This is probably much more correct in your opinion... And this scenario has a significantly higher probability of occurring. But what is the point of competing for such a rating?
And one more thing. I believe that while you and I delve into the depths of the calculation, the others will either wait or, if they get tired, give up. No one will bother to understand, and our dispute will simply cause confusion, and sooner or later, the phrase will be heard - "to avoid disputes, let's leave the simplest calculation option, which everyone understands and does not cause doubts in anyone"... In fact, I think that no option causes doubts in anyone, and only you and I have created the illusion of the importance of this issue. :)
Calculate as you see fit. In any case, I will not be involved in conducting rating calculations. So, the ball is in your court. However, if you need my help, I will not refuse.
Everything I wanted to say about this, I have said, and more than once. Reducing the "significance" of the second component is incorrect. I have already thought about this. Second place cannot have less significance if the leaders did not show up for the game. Otherwise, the result of any tournament can be questioned and called a fluke, considering that there are players somewhere who could have beaten everyone, but "simply didn't show up"... Each specific tournament is considered separately and regardless of whether someone did not show up.
The players who overtook you in your calculation deserve it - they took high places in the game that you did not participate in. And do not confuse this argument of mine with my previous statements about not showing up for the tournament. There, I spoke about the inadmissibility of a player who played "poorly" rising in the rankings due to your absence. There, this opportunity was provided to him by the high degree of aging (1/3), which you proposed, and it was not the player's merit. Here, the player took second place in the tournament, and for this, he should have the opportunity to move up in the ranking table. Your option will not allow him to do this, and the player will not receive the deserved reward. Therefore, your option introduces an imbalance.
My task is solved in a general form, and for the average tournament, it is more acceptable...
IMHO, as always.
