Kyle
Auto-translated
I agree, there is no optimal formula. Suggest rules that will take into account the interests of all participants in the Tournament equally. That would be very good...
Aging will gradually move an inactive player down (halving the winner's rating after 6 Tournaments), allowing others to continue competing for first place.
Personally, I thought that the rating simply has an informative character:smile32:, like, a player played so many Tournaments, scored so many points, and on average he plays at such a level... In your version:
In January, a player played one Tournament, won - and leads the list until December.
But, of course, if there is a competition for the maximum rating, then yes, the system does not work...
Therefore, what do we want from the rating? competition? or a reflection of the real strength of the players?
Added after 8 minutes
yes, numbers are not the main thing. I suggested a system.
well, as for the numbers... the numbers should be taken in such a way that if a player takes, say, first and tenth places in two Tournaments, then he will eventually be higher than a player who took fifth place both times. for example:
1st place - 75 points
2nd place - 55 points
3rd place - 40 points
4th place - 30 points
5th place - 23 points
6th place - 17 points
7th place - 12 points
8th place - 8 points
9th place - 5 points
10th place - 3 points
but the main thing is that the points do not depend on either the number of players or the level of the Tournament. and those who did not make it into the top ten remain without points.