| # | 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 |
what do you gain from copying an already existing solution? What's the point of getting rating like this?
1- It's not against the rules to copy solutions from another problems. Any material that was made public before the contest can be used.
2- If I solved the problem and noticed the similarities, I would spend less time on the problem if I get the already existing solution rather than writing it from scratch.
1- I didn't say it's cheating, but it's a waste of time and other people's ratings, just because there is edge case in the rules, doesn't mean we need to do those things, for example, if there wasn't any rule regarding ai, that doesn't mean we should solve all the problems just by copy-pasting code from ai
2- as I understood correctly, he mean he copy code on the website and not solved the problem himself, if I misunderstood and he solved it in the past, then it is different the.
It doesn't matter. In a competitive setting, morals doesn't matter. You have to do everything you legally can do to win. Because if you didn't someone else would. And how you, as a coordinator force everyone to do something? you introduce the rules.
There was a case in a recent Div 1+2 contest where problem H (or the last problem in the contest) was known in the japanese competitive programming space and loads of them just copied the solution form that site.
I get your point but it's subtle. You can't really blame the contestant for copying solutions from other sources, you've to blame the coordinators and the rules for that.
Saying that loud I might have a second thought on that tho.
bruh wtf????
Sorry for the issue. We didn't notice this before the contest. Actually, the authors proposed problem B in mid-December last year, so I believe it's just a coincidence.
both using same term : win condition ?
it's a clash royale reference
Its extremely funny how the usaco question uses the word "moolixir" in the question text but forgets the joke and straight up uses "elixir" in the example case explanation.
I have also noticed this similarity
Maybe a slight difference:
If FJ has at least one win-condition in his hand, the next card he plays must be a win-condition.
Doesn't really matter because I'm pretty sure (haven't solved this one) in this problem it's ideal to do this anyways
It is. In fact i did this problem a few months ago so idk what will happen to the contest as many people alr did this problem before.
Actually this is the line that makes the questions more similar, if this line didnt exist solutions would differ, take the case where we have 3 win conditions and a hand size of 2 and let the card costs in order be: 5 2 2 2 1 1 (bold ones are the win conditions) here the optimal solution for 5-7 moolixir would be to play the 1st card, yet for 7-8 moolixir gives us the optimal play of 2nd card repeatedly, thus the solution has to be different based on elixir count and thats an extra calculation required. With that line you mentioned this case is eliminated and just cycling the cheapest way till the next time we get a win condiiton becomes a good enaugh strategy.
Besides with only one wc, the optimal play already requires playing the win condition if you have it on your hand.
also noticed this, bad problem setting i guess, especially considering this would probably make it more vulnerable to ai and the c was much easier to implement.
ai would be able to do this even if the usaco problem didn't exist
yeah, but from what i know most free ai are very incapable compared to the ai people are using to hit master. putting a lock on your front door doesnt make it so people cant break in through your window, but you shouldnt leave your front door unlocked.
I don't think the ability of ai to solve this problem was affected by the USACO problem existing, that's all I'm saying
im saying i think free ai wouldnt be able to solve it if it wasn't already an existing problem but it probably can solve it now because of that.
you may be overestimating free ai
Ok, note that this problem isn't in ChatGPT's training data (it doesn't update really quick, cutoff is like 2025), so the only way it would be able to access it is by googling it, which you can check to see if it does that. I just tried it and it solved it first try in O(nlogn) using a completely different approach from the USACO problem.
oh ok, i thought they could access more recent problems since they had a search feature now
Usaco one is a bit harder than the cf one
N=2e5, Q=2e5, t=1e18, multiple win cards + forced play rule
no way we can simulate like before
probably binsearch on answer + smart way to compute min time to play X wins
lame doing contests like this :/