| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3792 |
| 2 | VivaciousAubergine | 3647 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3611 |
| 4 | jiangly | 3583 |
| 5 | strapple | 3515 |
| 6 | tourist | 3470 |
| 7 | Radewoosh | 3415 |
| 8 | Um_nik | 3376 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 3361 |
| 10 | XVIII | 3345 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 162 |
| 2 | adamant | 148 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 146 |
| 4 | Dominater069 | 143 |
| 5 | errorgorn | 141 |
| 6 | cry | 138 |
| 7 | Proof_by_QED | 136 |
| 8 | YuukiS | 135 |
| 9 | chromate00 | 134 |
| 10 | soullless | 133 |
| Name |
|---|



I'm really skeptical that this problem has a polynomial solution, so it's probably just about optimizing and pruning some type of backtracking.
Your solution is ok, but you have to change your dynamic programming by a backtrack to lose the constants of access to std::map, but you have to make some pruning to speed it up.
You know, the word backtrack probably comes from the action of "tracing back" (the last few moves; note that it's 'cing', not 'cking'), not "backing track" :D
but it's backtracking, isn't it? :D
Where I live, we have many words deformed by more comfortable pronounciation (you wouldn't guess what Bluetooth is sometimes called :D). I could be wrong, of course, it's just about what makes more sense to me.