Grandpakim, I totally disagree with you when you say my suggestion is somehow fudging the results. On the contary I believe my suggestion is much more accuratly indicitive of the difficulty in winning or losing a large game. What you are propsing in fact is the system with the point inflation. (What does FIDE mean btw?
) Are you actually trying to say that winning a 20 person game is 19 times harder to do then winning a 2 person game? Then why give the ultimate winner of the 20 person game 19 times the points? On the other hand, why is the first person out of the 20 person game disportionally penalized to the tune of 19 times what they would lose in a 2 person game. Was the larger game easier so they should have been expected to do better? Does the large game exsist in some alternate reality where its simultaneously easier for those that lose and harder for those that win?
It makes no sense to me to inflate the points artifically like this.
Also, why should everyone in the 20 person game get full credit for a win each time someone gets knocked out. Why should I get the same amount of points in a large game simply for outLasting Primitve, when we never met and I had no involvment in beating him at all, then I would for beating him head to head in a 1 on 1 game.
No artifical point inflation, please. Just give me the points I have earned thank you. Don't give me extra points just because I chose to play in a large game.