In other words, you believe that FIDE uses an unfair system in chess tournaments at all levels?

And if we consider the opposite, is it the fairest of all possible systems? It's just that this system was first applied in a chess tournament in Zurich, and it got its name there, so it stuck.

I don't remember seeing any Olympic sports using the Swiss system to determine the winner. In tennis, they could easily hold tournaments using the Swiss system (there are many players), but they don't.

Its pros and cons are well described on Wikipedia; what one considers more important is another matter. In this case, I think the knockout system wins because there aren't too many players, and until the very last defeat, everything depends only on your own games, regardless of how other pairs play.

Added after 1 hour 51 minutes

Message from HeLlight:
haven't seen such excellent performance in any tournament for 2 years

Strict deadlines were introduced earlier at the start of the playoffs here, and the performance became perfect. Here also shows excellent performance :)

largely due to judging game disputes and understanding that you won't be waited for... I think it should be implemented everywhere (at least before the final stages of tournaments); I'm tired of all sorts of latecomers... some people have this chronically.

When I introduced strict deadlines in the "One for All and All for One" tournament, I received a lot of dissatisfaction and misunderstanding about this both in private messages and otherwise. It is pleasant to observe (judging by the responses in the survey) that most now assess the advantages and see their necessity in tournaments after a short time.