| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3659 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3640 |
| 4 | turmax | 3450 |
| 5 | tourist | 3382 |
| 6 | strapple | 3360 |
| 7 | Um_nik | 3354 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3348 |
| 9 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 10 | maroonrk | 3312 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 157 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 149 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 144 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | adamant | 137 |
| 8 | BledDest | 133 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 132 |
| 10 | Proof_by_QED | 131 |
| Name |
|---|



A greedy approach could be , find which cell destroys maximal numbers of rocks in each iteration until all are destroyed.
But I cannot prove correctness.
While the number of rocks is greater than 0
{
find max in matrix count[][]
bomb that possition
re-initilize\update count[][]
}
There's your greedy.
Complexity O(N^4) and since N<25 its no biggie.
Pretty sure there's no counter example for this.