Go and look at my latest example and calculate it along with everything else. The fact that you took second place will earn you a significant bonus from your contribution, and so on.

Well, that's normal... :) Second place is second place, even in Africa... But the fact that there weren't many strong players in the tournament (which allowed a weaker player to take second place) is offset by the lower rank of the tournament.

So, the overall balance is preserved. All these points have been discussed for a long time, and you should remember this - the low rank of the tournament allows you to apply a lower (compared to the first tournament) coefficient to the result. And the fact that your example doesn't take into account the tournament rank means that this example cannot be considered correct. Apply a coefficient to the results of the second tournament that takes into account the low average rating of its players, and tell me what the final result is?

And in general, essentially, our discussion about the methodology for balanced accounting of the performance of all players in the tournament is turning into a search for "flaws" on your part. You are trying to reduce everything to a comparison with the leader's result. But this significantly narrows the picture down to just two numbers. It feels like the tournament is just a duel between two players - the tournament leader and the player. That's it. Your accounting mechanism ignores many significant factors:

- it doesn't take into account the number of participants
- it doesn't take into account the second criterion, which also indicates the player's strength. After all, getting the most resources (according to the rules - mercury) in a tournament in the same time as other participants indicates the player's strength and skill. Or do you disagree?
- it doesn't take into account the average strength of all players in the tournament

The word "Rating" is a broader concept. Therefore, I urge you to spend your energy not on defending your specific position, but on finding solutions to all the points that you don't like in the oscillator. And don't reject these points, but make them more balanced. You simply cut everything out. This is dogmatism. Your principle: "this is not accepted because there are flaws."

So, maybe it's worth simply correcting the flaws so that only the advantages remain? Or is it time to close this discussion.