Блог пользователя uhateme

ACM-ICPC World Finals 2016 as Codeforces Gym
Автор uhateme, история, 8 лет назад, По-английски

Is it possible to add the problems of ACM-ICPC World Finals 2016 as a Gym on Codeforces? It will be a great help.

  • Проголосовать: нравится
  • +1
  • Проголосовать: не нравится

»
8 лет назад, # |
  Проголосовать: нравится +31 Проголосовать: не нравится

As you can notice, there are no WF contests in the Gym. One of the reasons is: you should solve WFs only in order to prepare to WF itself, and thus it is better not to see problems before.

→ Ответить
  • »
    »
    8 лет назад, # ^ |
      Проголосовать: нравится +5 Проголосовать: не нравится

    But solving it as a gym not only will help prepare for WF, but will also give a vague idea about where you actually stand.

    → Ответить
    • »
      »
      »
      8 лет назад, # ^ |
      ← Rev. 2   Проголосовать: нравится +16 Проголосовать: не нравится

      You don't get my idea.

      Imagine a blue/aqua/green freshman who can only go to the WF in his wildest dreams. He opens a WF problemset because of his curiosity, he reads and solves some problems, he discovers that his level is very low (oh, really?) Then several years pass, he has been training a lot and becomes red, creates a team, they proceed to the WF and have significant chances for the medal... Then a team wants to solve past WFs for a preparation, but wait, one of them has already seen the problems and remembers solutions! The training is ruined, isn't it? This is not a hypothetical case, this is to some extent my story.

      So the point is WFs should not be available conveniently. If you prepare for the Finals, there are ways to get problemsets and tests. There is opentrains, there are official archives for several last years. If you have a coach and train, you have access to all these data. But you shouldn't be able to see these contests only by curiosity.

      Finally saying, WF is not really the contest which can show you your level. I dare say that there are more strong teams in NEERC than at the WF because of the one-team-per-U rule. And, as it was told in some discussion here on CF, a big grey-green tail of participants has no effect on the distribution of the medals.

      → Ответить
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        8 лет назад, # ^ |
        ← Rev. 2   Проголосовать: нравится +5 Проголосовать: не нравится

        Well that's a valid point, but then situation can be different depending on the facilities you have.
        There are official archives and we can get them if we have a coach or something. If you dont, it can prove quite difficult to get that data. The ones where you get generally has other data like number of submissions along with it, which thus gives a vague idea about the difficulty levels of each problem. Also, there is no timer ticking and people rising above you in leaderboard giving you the mental pressure. Thus, there is no proper contest type thing for the WF which a team can practice.

        → Ответить
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        8 лет назад, # ^ |
        ← Rev. 2   Проголосовать: нравится +31 Проголосовать: не нравится

        "I dare say that there are more strong teams in NEERC than at the WF because of the one-team-per-U rule." — isn't that too forward :P? Russia is currently surely strongest competitive programming country, but compare NEERC standings with WF standings and think once again :P. Or imagine WF standings with inserted teams which didn't qualify because of that rule. Surely, some of them will probably end up high, but that won't make up for nonNEERC teams.

        Btw, on a more serious note, I fully agree with you on motivation behind hiding WF problemsets, but it looks like very small number of people solve WFs virtually. To best of my knowledge opentrains is the only place where you can participate virtually. I would expect number of teams actively preparing there for finals to be sth between 20-50 each year, however from my observations it is closer to 2-5. What is the reason behind it? Isn't that because this is very little known?

        → Ответить