There is a problem:

There are three piles of stones in front of Timothy: in the first A, in the second B, and in the third C pieces. He wants to ensure that the number of stones in all piles is the same. At the same time, it is possible to transfer to a pile in one turn only from some other and only as many stones as it already contains. For example, if there is 1 stone in the first pile, 2 in the second, and 3 in the third, then you can move one stone from the second or third pile to the first or two stones from the third to the second in one move.

Help Timothy determine the least number of moves he needs to equalize the number of stones in the three piles.

Read it and tell me how you understood the wording "and only as many stones as it already contains"? You must agree, it can be understood as the fact that any number of stones can be placed in a pile, no more than the current size of the pile, and as the fact that only the number of stones equal to its current size can be placed in a pile. And the example given after this sentence will not contradict any of the formulations. Unless, if you understand the task in the first way, not all possible operations will be listed there, but the condition does not say that other operations cannot be performed (in example 1 2 3), and the above conditions also do not contradict this understanding of the task in any way. In this case, you can just ask the jury a question about the condition and clarify this wording, right? The problem is that at the Olympiad where this task was presented, the questions were not provided for, so the participants could only guess what the author meant. The question is, who should the participant blame for not being able to get 100 points on this task: himself, for not going through all possible versions of what the authors of the task wanted to say, or the authors, for failing with the formulation?