Note that if there are 2m−4 players, we can label them
a1,a2,…,am−3,Am−2,Bm−2,am−1,…,a2m−5,
and assume that player Pi beats player Pj if and only if i>j, and Am−2 and Bm−2 are in a tie. It is easy to see that in the group of m players, there exists a unique player Pi with the maximum index i (m−1≤i≤2m−5, and this player won all games against other players in the group), and there exists a unique player Pi with the minimum index j (1≤i≤m−3, and this player lost all games against other players in the group). Hence this tournament has property P(m) and not all players have distinct total points. If n<2m−4, we can then build a similar tournament by taking players away from both ends index-wise). Hence the answer is greater than 2m−3. It suffices to show the following claim:
If there are 2m−3 players in a tournament with property P(m), then the players must have distinct total final score.
In a group, if a player won (or lose) all games against the rest of the players in the group, we call this player the winner (or loser) of the group. If a player won (or lose) all his games in the tournament, we call this player the complete winner (or complete loser). We establish the following lemmas.
Lemma 1 In an n-player (n≥m) tournament with property P(m), there is a complete winner.
*Proof:* We implement an induction on n. If n=m, the statement is trivial. Now assume that the statement is true for some n=k (k≥m), we consider a (k+1)-player tournament with property P(m). Let a1,⋯,ak+1 denote the players. By the induction hypothesis, we may assume that ak+1 is the winner in the group a2,⋯,ak+1. We consider three cases:
(a) If ak+1 won the game against a1, then ak+1 is the complete winner;
(b) If ak+1 tied the game against a1, then the group a1,a2,⋯,ak−1,ak+1 has no winner, violating the condition that the tournament has property P(m);
(c) If ak+1 lose the game against a1, then the group {a1,a2,⋯,ak−1,ak,ak+1}∖{ai}(2≤i≤k) has a winner, and this winner can only be a1. Thus a1 is the complete winner.
Combining the three cases, we find a complete winner in the tournament, hence our induction is complete.
In exactly the same way, we can prove that
Lemma 2 In an n-player (n≥m) tournament with property P(m), there is a complete loser.
Now we are ready to prove our claim in a similar manner.