greateric's blog

A theory of getting good at Codeforces
By greateric, history, 4 hours ago, In English

Broke 2000 today :)

I argue that if you want to get to your goal rating $$$r$$$, it's decided by how well you can solve problems with rating $$$r-200$$$, and potentially not the classical wisdom of "really struggle with hard problems".

Here's a few examples from contests I've done well in:

  • Round 1087. I got a 2047 performance with the hardest problem I solved being D, 1800
  • Nebius Round 2. I got 1973 performance with D, 1900 (Maybe not the best example, since I was quite slow for C2 and D, spending an hour on each. But this still shows my point kind of.)
  • Educational Round 190. I got 2269 performance with E, 2100
  • Round 1101. I got 2252 performance with D, 2000 (according to CList so far)

A few older examples:

  • Round 1085. I got 1871 performance with C, 1600 (and I took an hour to solve it)
  • Round 1081. I got 1645 performance with C, 1300

Basically point being, solving a problem of rating $$$x$$$ can give you a performance near $$$x+200$$$, or more, if you're fast. While I think the classical wisdom of practicing hard problems to learn new ideas is good, it's also worth emphasizing the skills that will actually get you good performances in round.

Additionally, all my bad contests have been from failing early problems which messes up your momentum for the hard problems. If I try to skip the early problem and jump ahead, I end up jumping back and forth between the two problems instead of sitting down and really thinking about one, and making no progress on either. Getting good at easy problems helps with this.

Also, I think practicing implementation speed and accuracy can be very helpful. You lose a lot of time and mental momentum if you spend 25 minutes debugging an out of bounds error or overflow or some stupid mistake on problem C. I grinded through like 100x 1600 and 100x 1700 problems and I think I am noticeably better at it. I also don't have the "mental aversion to coding" that I used to where I would dread having to implement and WA2 and debug.

TLDR: Don't forget to practice problems slightly below your rating. And also get good at implementation.

  • Vote: I like it
  • +7
  • Vote: I do not like it

»
4 hours ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it -16 Vote: I do not like it

Stop gatekeeping the real secrets like leaving beautiful comments like this that a real human boy would definitely make

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    4 hours ago, hide # ^ |
    ← Rev. 6  
    Vote: I like it +15 Vote: I do not like it

    Yes, I used to write comments when I started. If you're not convinced you're welcome to go check my ICPC results next year.

    also which submission even was this btw i forgot

    edit 3: oh yeah this comment is definitely ai

    /*
 * Kentq orz recursive spec: solves n disks from :from: to :to: using :extra:
 *   in 2^(n-1) - 1 moves or less.
 *   Base case: n = 1 in 1 move (trivial)
 */

    (Kentq is a professor at my university)

    Edit 4: I put this problem through chatgpt for fun and it seems to be spewing bs. Do let me know if it actually solves the problem correctly

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
      ← Rev. 2  
      Vote: I like it -9 Vote: I do not like it

      You are attempting to prove by example that you don't use AI in contest, and prove using the future that you don't use AI in contest

      Also, if you really weren't using AI, would you have edited this 5 times to desperately try to prove your legitimacy?

      Would also like to note that "when you started" is approximately 10 hours ago as of writing this, you've been starting for quite a while

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
         
        Vote: I like it +14 Vote: I do not like it

        How can I prove a negative?

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
           
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          maybe three months ago you could prove you weren't ai by doing like 2k performance but idk anymore man ai getting too good. Although the burden of proof is upon the person accusing you so all you have to do is disprove the evidence against youy which you seemed to do

          → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +15 Vote: I do not like it

    Making comments is now AI? Ok I guess I have been using AI since 2020 if that is true.

    If you are typing code without thinking, you will not solve the problem. You must think about the problem first, figure out the main observations, then find a solution.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      no I've used comments too, but not things like "There is an answer if there is an answer"

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
         
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        That is not what his comment says. Reread the problem statement.

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
           
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          tbh i tend to like to ramble in the code editor. you can look at the 200 submissions ive done in practice

          → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
         
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Maybe that's why you are stuck on pupil

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
           
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          > usually gets specialist performance

          > loses rating ONCE

          > "stuck on pupil"

          Because you're the authority here for taking 33 contests to get to specialist

          → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
            ← Rev. 3  
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

            "usually get specialist performance"

            never get to specialist

            Haha just keep coping, kid. Dont face the reality. Keep living in that sweet dream of you are a specialist because you "usually get" spec perf.

            Few tips, maybe you should spend your time training rather than accusing someone cheating out of pure jealousy and blaming "cheaters" for your rating and not realizing you have skill issue.

            → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Ah yes, because comments are made to distinguish AI and human not to actually put an explanation of what a code blocks does

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    will this count in AI too..?

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 hours ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Yes.

      (Also how tf did a blog about solving lower rated problems being better for contest performance turn this heated)

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        30 minutes ago, hide # ^ |
         
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        I think that is because for one legit case (that you probably are), there are multiple cheaters with similar rating dynamics.

        Moreover, some cheaters, for some reasons, tend to make similar but more AI sloppish blogs and comments about "their" achievements, "their" standpoint on practice, problem solving, algorithms etc. My theory is that they do it to build credibility.

        I'm surprised that you expected a different reaction given your conditions. Namely, your rating graph, which is CM level performance from the start in 2026.

        Also, speaking about the actual content of your blog. I think that you were already quite good enough when you started. Therefore, in my opinion, the actual improvement (i.e. the difference between 2 states: the start and the current state) is more modest than your blog suggests. But I'm glad that we are both on the in my opinion team, so take it with a grain of salt.

        However, I agree that solving easier problems is helpful. I also try to include them in my practice. Not only it improves time from opening statement to AC and routinizes the process to get AC, it also improves your guessing ability, which is, I think, the core of Codeforces contests.

        Moreover, I think that for many people mastering speedforcing skills is a very good strategy to gain rating EV wise (but in short term). Specifically, for people who initially are not good enough (both problem solving skill and talent) to approach harder problems.

        PS: Adding TLDR in the end of the blog is trolling.

        → Reply
»
4 hours ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Auto comment: topic has been updated by greateric (previous revision, new revision, compare).

→ Reply
»
3 hours ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

greateriorz

→ Reply