IronAxe
Auto-translated
1. After you see the example, please comment specifically on it, as you have repeatedly asked me to provide you with a specific calculation.
2. This file does not have a +20 point bonus for the underdog, so remove all the old questions from your arguments that have already been addressed and answer the specific questions posed to you by my example.
3. The rating of the underdog is reduced by half precisely by the balance calculation method. And this correction is not the same for everyone - the higher the position, the greater the bonus...
In my system, the leader reduced everyone's rating because he cannot get more than 100, and his increase will constantly decrease due to aging, so what should he do? He then targets the players in second place, reducing their rating. After all, the calculation is relative anyway. But the rating works correctly in this case. The leader played great, so he is pulling away!!! And the method doesn't matter.
No one is offended in my case. The leader rose, and everyone else was slightly reduced.
But how did he reduce them? When aging at 33%, he pushes the player closest to him in second place into the negative more than anyone else, because otherwise he cannot pull away in the rating. The rest are reduced by a smaller amount. And who is to blame? The rating? The player in second place and the others should have performed better in relation to the leader's result, measured in days. Why blame the mirror when the face is crooked?
AmberSoler - thank you for the very successful example that so clearly shows how my system works in a major situation - I'm giving you a thumbs up.
And the system also works with 10% aging. Why didn't you plug in your system for comparison? Do that and comment on it too. I want to hear your comments on how my system and your system work in the major situation you created.