We’re excited to announce our upcoming contest, Repovive Standard Round 1!
Start Time:
Wednesday, 25 February 2026, 14:35 (UTC)Sunday, 1 March 2026, 14:35 (UTC)Monday, 2 March 2026, 14:35 (UTC).Duration: $$$2$$$ hours.
Registration: https://repovive.com/contests/8.
UPD: Due to a schedule conflict with a Codeforces contest, the start time has been changed.
UPD2: The contest has been postponed by one more day.
The contest is rated for everyone.
Our Writers: Hamed_Ghaffari, _R00T, Bahamin, AmirAli-Asgari and me.
Our Testers: Amoo_Safar, mohammadsam, Ali_BBN, Hmzaawy and Shayan.
The Innovation Game (TIG) is sponsoring this contest!
To make this contest even more exciting, TIG is dropping some rewards:
- 1st Place: $100 in TIG tokens
- 2nd Place: $50 in TIG tokens
- 3 random participants from the Top 100 will each receive $20 in TIG tokens
- 3 random participants will each receive $20 in TIG tokens
When you finish competing, check out what TIG is building. They run a continuous, 24/7 algorithmic competition to ensure frontier algorithms remain open-source. You can submit optimized code to win from their weekly prize pools (currently $9K in TIG Tokens). Learn more and start earning on their network here.
It’s clashing with the educational round.
Can we prepone it to tomorrow?
Updated. Thanks.
And now it's clashing with Kotlin Heroes. Also, it would be really nice to host your rounds during the weekend since they are rare anyways...
btw who stay behind repovive?
After adding
my old RE code gets AC immediately.
I guess there are $$$l_i \gt r_i$$$ cases in test data and my old code hasn't been rejudged yet.
Yeah, I'm sure there are. I got RE -> AC by adding "if input is invalid, terminate with 0" which I intended to give WA if there's an invalid input.
Did you get AC sometime between ~1:20 and 1:30 into the contest? It could be the result of a silent fix without rejudging.
In problem C, there is a test case with $$$n=1$$$ even though constraints claim $$$n \ge 2$$$.
Also the judge itself is strict, which means in problems where an array is to be printed if you print a stray blank character (in this case as a result of printing the elements of array in a loop) you will get WA. I assume this is why so many people have plenty of WA on E. This could have been communicated more clearly especially since you have no information whether you passed the samples or not.
Actually there's a run button in their website ide, and this is how I found out (also cost me a WA on F).
Why is the judge white-space sensitive? Aren't most online judges currently doing some tokenization to check equality of two outputs? It is also inconsistent (in problem A you are allowed to have trailing new line, or not. But in problem F you are not allowed to have a space and then a new line.)
Honestly I don't mind when I have to follow the exact output format described in the problem statement. It's not entirely uncommon, iirc there was a recent-ish CF round where people complained about the same in one problem. If people get used to not all constraints being actually required when there's no guarantee that loosely printing the output would get AC, that's punishable sloppiness.
The same logic could be applied to corner cases and such as well. If $$$N=1$$$ is a trivial special case that doesn't add anything to understanding of a problem, should it be avoided? It could, at authors' discretion, but if the constraints allow a special case and I skip it, I accept the risk of getting WA. (Yes, I've seen problems where a test case like that didn't exist in official test data because "doesn't matter". Not all judges have post-contest hacks.)
It's much worse when the inputs don't follow problem statements either. Especially without working clarifications.
I also don't care that much about strict / nonstrict spaces. The problem is when it becomes a guessing game, If you want exact spaces then you should state in the output section how you want them exactly. Or have some reminder somewhere that this contest requires exact whitespace (which is not true when it comes to trailing spaces in the last line).
The previous contest had a problem that stated "or determine that it's impossible", had no description of what to output in the impossible case and constraints that made it always possible. Precise formulation of problems definitely needs some work.