Overall rating for all games.

Indeed, the bonus coefficient depends on previous results.
.....
The point is that the bonus coefficient encourages improvement compared to one's own previous result. That is, if you took fifth place in one tournament, to receive a bonus in the next tournament, you must take at least fourth place.
.....

In general, the explanation is understandable, but it also reminds me of something AmberSoler mentioned, albeit from a slightly different perspective. That is, a somewhat illogical situation arises. Three players play in the first tournament and take 1st, 2nd, and, say, 5th place. In the second tournament, the first two players also take 1st and 2nd place. And the third takes 3rd place. The first two players do not receive a bonus, EVEN THOUGH they did not play worse. And the third improved their position by 2 places and receives a bonus and may overtake the first two in the ranking. On what basis? Especially if we assume that the players who took 3rd and 4th place in the first tournament simply DID NOT SHOW UP for the second tournament!? On what basis, then, does the third player receive a bonus in the second tournament? The situation is exacerbated if, in addition to everything else, we assume that, in relation to the leader's result, the third player performed even worse in days in the second tournament than in the first, but again, took third place in the second simply because the 3rd and 4th players did not show up. Is this possible? At least theoretically? That is, again, it turns out that taking places into account can introduce an imbalance in the calculation. I don't want to and won't deal with this, but I raised this issue again because new players have become interested in these questions.