Unfortunately, in my opinion, you have long gone beyond the bounds of common sense and are so blinded by your calculation method that you are unable to comprehend rational comments from other players if these comments do not fit into your scheme...

You are not providing answers to my questions. And I am providing answers to all your questions. And I have repeatedly shown that there are even more mistakes with your oscillator than with my system. I do not deny the mistakes in my system, but in my opinion, there are fewer of them. And I have shown you situations where my system copes and does not make mistakes, while yours already fails at this stage. I asked you to show a clear example where it would be the other way around. Where is it?

On what basis are you comparing players from different Tournaments, even if they played on the same map?...

On the basis that the Tournaments were ranked, and the organizers asked to calculate the players' ratings. As a result, players from different Tournaments will end up in a General ranking table. And we can see what your oscillator and the system without an oscillator do there. You cannot explain the erroneous aspects of the oscillator's operation, so you evade the answer and start attacking :) And you use all sorts of forbidden arguments about common sense. I can say the same to you in return :)

In other words, why should the winner of the second Tournament receive the same number of points as the winner of the first on the same map, if the second performed, say, twice as poorly? This question is based solely on your principles of argumentation. And, paraphrasing your phrase, I will ask the question like this:
Question: "Why should the winner of an unpopular Tournament receive the maximum rating if, for example, he plays very poorly and completed the same starting save only in another Tournament, but performed an order of magnitude worse than the leader from a popular Tournament???"
If you say that the winner receives the maximum number of points because he took first place, then you admit that the place matters regardless of the result. In this case, second place should also matter. Otherwise, if you deny the importance of the place taken, it will be interesting to get your answer to the question above.

Okay, I'll answer like this: with the oscillator, he would get even MORE
for first place, even though he plays poorly. Is this unclear to you, or are you trying to confuse the people who are reading this thread even more? You have already confused me :) I meant that not the leading player will receive it, but other players, and they will undeservedly overtake others. Example: player 2 and player 6.

I do not deny this mistake. But the oscillator only amplifies it :)
According to my system, the leading player receives the maximum rating, even though he plays poorly, simply because the stronger players didn't participate. But with your oscillator, he will also get a significant bonus for the very fact of taking FIRST place. Stop stalling. See the example of player 2 and player 6.

I don't have an idea yet on how to reduce this mistake. Only if we assume that the map can be completed in one day. And then compare all players with this result, including the leader. Understand?