Блог пользователя greateric

Автор greateric, история, 2 часа назад, По-английски

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.

  • Проголосовать: нравится
  • +3
  • Проголосовать: не нравится

»
2 часа назад, скрыть # |
 
Проголосовать: нравится 0 Проголосовать: не нравится

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

  • »
    »
    2 часа назад, скрыть # ^ |
    Rev. 6  
    Проголосовать: нравится +9 Проголосовать: не нравится

    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

    • »
      »
      »
      101 минуту назад, скрыть # ^ |
      Rev. 2  
      Проголосовать: нравится -6 Проголосовать: не нравится

      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

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        101 минуту назад, скрыть # ^ |
         
        Проголосовать: нравится +11 Проголосовать: не нравится

        How can I prove a negative?

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          83 минуты назад, скрыть # ^ |
           
          Проголосовать: нравится 0 Проголосовать: не нравится

          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

  • »
    »
    99 минут назад, скрыть # ^ |
     
    Проголосовать: нравится +11 Проголосовать: не нравится

    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.

  • »
    »
    92 минуты назад, скрыть # ^ |
     
    Проголосовать: нравится 0 Проголосовать: не нравится

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

  • »
    »
    77 минут назад, скрыть # ^ |
     
    Проголосовать: нравится +4 Проголосовать: не нравится

    will this count in AI too..?

»
2 часа назад, скрыть # |
 
Проголосовать: нравится 0 Проголосовать: не нравится

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

»
94 минуты назад, скрыть # |
 
Проголосовать: нравится 0 Проголосовать: не нравится

greateriorz