.
| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | jiangly | 3810 |
| 2 | Benq | 3676 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3655 |
| 4 | maroonrk | 3463 |
| 5 | strapple | 3390 |
| 6 | Um_nik | 3387 |
| 7 | tourist | 3384 |
| 8 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 9 | turmax | 3319 |
| 10 | jiangbowen | 3291 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 156 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 150 |
| 2 | maspy | 150 |
| 4 | Um_nik | 144 |
| 5 | Errichto | 139 |
| 6 | AmShZ | 138 |
| 7 | adamant | 137 |
| 8 | maroonrk | 133 |
| 9 | BledDest | 132 |
| 10 | qwexd | 129 |
| Name |
|---|



This is definitely not a good idea for some constructive problems, where knowing the jury answer could allow participants to reverse-engineer the solution from the outputs. This is a bit less of an issue for problems with fixed answers, but something like that can still happen to a lesser degree.
Ari It can be taken care of , if we enable this checking only a limited number of times per each question, for example a maximum of 4 checks per question , I guess this clears it .
You can easily know you've misunderstood the problem when you receive WA verdict.
Yeah but in contests won't it be a -50 after passing pretest-1 only to fail in the next one
Don't turn Codeforces into HackerEarth.