Marshmud: I haven't experienced it either. But I don't use fischer that much here. Our user created tournaments are awesome.

I personally hated IYT's ladder system. But I ended up hating about everything about IYT. (And that was my full time game site before I discovered Brainking. I was obsessed with IYT. I bought all their merchandise too lol)
I think ours is decent. But seems to have lost interest. At least none of the ladders I'm in here are as active as they used to be. Err. I mean stairs. LOL...

rod03801: Believe it or not I become friends with Patrick Chu owner of IYT. My daughter went to the college where chu went and designed IYT. He has a big wallet now.

rod03801: The biggest problem with our stair system is that you can only challenge down or even, so there is no incentive to make challenges. I know that when I get to the top of one I just sit there. also there are too many 2 game matches that end in a draw, there should always be a winner

Vikings: I agree. I had posted a message about the way I think it should be for the stairs system to work. Forcing you to challenge at same level or *below* is a weird system for a stair/ladder. Lower ranked players thirst for challenge, higher ranked players, not so much.
I do not like IYT ladder system, as it is unfair to *exchange* positions with the one you defeat. Gaining a step(for the winner of the lower step) and losing a step(for the loser of the higher step) is what I consider fair. And, in my opinion, the lower ranked player should not lose steps on defeat as well as the higher ranked player does not gain steps on win.
So, basically, you only gain steps when you win against same or higher steps, you only lose steps when you lose against lower steps. You cannot deny challenges but a limit on the maximum number you can challenge and be challenged should exist. More than 1 each, for certain.

ThunderGr: When I played Chess in a club (last lifetime), we had the stairs as a strict sequence. All participants were listed in a sequence, and you could only challenge the player immediately above you. If you win, you switch places with him, if you lose, you cannot challenge for a set amount of time (maybe 2 weeks).
This worked out very well.

Aganju: Yes, it is one fair method, as well. Besides, the exchange you describe is a sub-case of the system I describe(when you challenge someone exactly above you, and you have not another stair matches concluded, the lower ranked winning would give him a step, the higher ranked losing would take away a step, so, essentially, they exchange positions).

However, consider this situation: The player directly above you is a great player that is not interested in challenging to advance. This keeps him/her at a low step, preventing everyone else to move above his/her position.

Result: Frustrated, the players will stop challenging and the ladder will stagnate

Solution: If you give the ability to challenge at a greater range, you can sidestep said player who, eventually, will be forced to make challenges to stay in his/her preferred position.

Vikings: Yes. That was my concern when the stairs were created. Too many draws, due to 2 game matches. Thats why I like the "Very Fast" stairs. Those are just one game. I understand the reasoning on the other ones, due to games that one color has an advantage. Probably there is a better solution though.

rod03801: Of course there is. In a draw, the lower ranked player advances. The higher ranked player should always strive for a win to keep his/her position :).