In fact, these "real world" ranking systems are, without exception, time-rated. If Tiger did not play at all, he'd soon enough slide right off the lists, within a year he'd be in the middle and after two years he'd be gone altogether. And that's on a system that permits a MAXIMUM of 52 competitions a year.
In Elite, a serious player can get in 50 tournaments in a week or two, no problem. We operate on internet time. This is why we decided to reset quarterly.
We would have liked to explore some sort of rollover rating where all ratings were based on performance over, say, the last 60 days, and tourneys would stack up on one end and bleed off on the other, but that's currently a prohibitive programming problem for us. This is our compromise.
I am at a loss as to why any skilled player would feel victimized by this addition to our ranking system. Personally, I welcome the chance to face a new challenge every three months, and I believe most skilled players feel the same way. That's what we are all about, competition.
Finally, there was a very large and articulate groundswell requesting that we do something about a rating system that parks certain long-term players in the top 10 and makes it almost impossible to overtake them. The significant thing here is that we have addressed exactly that issue while leaving intact and prominent on each league's front page the lifetime rankings as well.
I don't know how much more neutral than that we can be.