|
0
Thank you. I’ll try to investigate it. |
|
0
Maybe you have some copy-paste from HTML. And HTML source of your question exceeded 1000? |
|
0
I’ve sent email. |
|
+2
Right. Also you may read Wikipedia about ACM-ICPC. |
|
0
These problems are not supported in practice correctly for now. I’ve temporary removed them from the problem archive. Sorry. |
|
+5
It is for onsite participants. You should register on Codeforces Round #115, it will contain exactly the same problemset. |
|
+11
They will be in Russian and English. |
|
+17
Great! Write Gerald. |
|
+10
Fixed, thanks |
|
+5
Fixed, thanks |
|
+15
Fixed, thank you |
|
0
Fixed |
|
0
I’ll give access to the solutions soon. |
|
+2
As usual X / 250 per minute, where X is the problem max. score. |
|
-10
Yep, you can. |
|
0
No. |
|
+3
They are allowed, but you may have difficulties with registration and reading some additional materials (if any). Also I believe it is not easy (impossible?) to organize trip to Moscow in a week. |
|
+1
No :( It is a pilot Championship, but contestants have a chance to win money or Mac Books. Not too bad! |
|
0
Yep, it is written. |
|
+2
Please write me about cheaters if you see some (or just a suspiciously similar codes). == Пожалуйста, пишите мне личные сообщения, если видите читеров или просто подозрительно похожие коды. |
|
+20
I’m sorry. Yes. It is just the result of wrong contest policy setup. It will not be such issue in the future. Sorry again. |
|
0
Answered in personal talks (messages). |
|
0
Yes, but you follow the rules 1-3. |
|
0
This problem has a solution on Python consumed 60 ms and 3100 KB. I think it is possibly to solve it on Ruby. Anyway we do not guarantee that any problem has a solution on languages like Perl/PHP/Python/Ruby. |
|
+1
Because we found that sometimes this optimization makes code to be invalid. |
|
0
Read the comments above |
|
+4
You should be registered to:
|
|
+6
No |
|
0
It is right |
|
0
Yes, you can submit any problem many times. |
|
0
Fixed, thanks. |
|
+1
Thanks! It is so hard to be attentive at 3 AM. |
|
+23
No, they will not be rated. |
|
+30
Sorry for delay, some technical problems around “Unable to parse” forced to move the start. |
|
+6
Fixed, thank you. |
|
+9
Thank you. It will be fixed. |
|
+8
The problem is that it is impossible to make such checking in frontend. Obviously, web server can’t run For now I’ve improved the regex and we will implement checkbox like “Do not show me this warring”. I believe it will be enough. |
|
0
Yep, regex is needed to be improved to handle the first case correctly. But the second case seems to be indistinguishable. |
|
+11
Great news! I’ve received congratulations to the winners from Thomas Cormen (thank you!). I’ve added it to the text. |
|
+14
From the announcement:
|
|
+11
There are two reasons:
|
|
+1
It works, see http://codeforces.ru/blog/entry/3780#comment-76662 Use the editor main menu to insert highlighted source code. |
|
0
It seems it works: Just use main menu from the editor, we have a special syntax to highlight the code. |
|
+14
Fixed, thank you for the report. |
|
0
It is a small bug. In future system will count attempt failed on the first test if the problem contains exactly one test.
|
|
0
No, only if you've solved the problem you can see others solutions.
|
|
+3
Please, post here only bugs and feature requests.
|
|
+22
Any contest on Codeforces::Gym will be unrated
|
|
+3
Yep
|
|
+8
It will be available as a virtual contest.
|
|
0
It will be soon, not as update but as a separate language for now. Also we have desire to use it in production. Do you have such experience?
|
|
+15
Process time is not a constant on any operation system, but it could vary a little. Typically 3-10% is acceptable accuracy. In particular on this all author solutions are 2-3 times faster than a time limit. Actually each contest we have some solutions which work around a time limit. Some of them pass system tests, some of them not. But anyway, writing such solution is a risk, because you can't get will it pass tests or not. We do not rejudge such solutions, it would be unfair to other participants. We apologize for the inconvenience. |
|
0
Great! Wating for them.
|
|
0
Are the solutions published anywhere? I found only tests but can't find the solutions :(
|
|
0
use ((problem:133C)) (but replace round brackets to square) to get the link 133C - Turing Tape, look http://codeforces.com/blog/entry/2682
|
|
+6
You have some array overflow or similar. So the solution has random behavior. Here are two consecutive invocations of the first solution:
Z:\Cop>1.exe < input.txt 4 Z:\Cop>1.exe < input.txt 35 |
|
0
1. Read http://codeforces.com/blog/entry/2682 how to insert submission link properly;
2. It means your solution prints extra non-printable character(s). Try to run your solution localy. You may see that it prints extra-character with code 0 after "codeforces". |
|
0
Please, give the link to the submission.
|
|
0
Glad to see you here!
Yep, this problem could be solved using KMP. Moreover Z- and prefix-function are equivalent (one can transform Z<->prefix in O(n)). But for me often it is easier to think in terms of Z-function to solve a problem. |
|
+1
No.
|
|
+8
But you may shorten it. "You are allowed not to shorten the initial word if its length does not exceed four characters."
|
|
0
Now all the past contests are available as virtual contests.
=== Теперь все прошедшие соревнования доступны как виртуальные контесты. |
|
0
It will be fixed soon.
|
|
0
It seems yes. It will be rated. If Java issue affected somebody for 10 minutes of more, we can make the contest unrated for him/her. This fact should be proved by submissions log.
=== Похоже, что да. Контест будет рейтинговым. Если на кого-то сильно повлияла эта проблема (10 минут и более), то для него мы можем сделать участие внеконкурсным. Этот факт должен быть доказан логом посылок. |
|
0
Так как во время контеста были некоторые проблемы с тестированием решений на Java, то в этом контесте все успешные, но не последние посылки (на претесты) не приводят к дополнительному штрафу, а игнорируются. Еще раз приносим извинения за доставленное неудобство. = Since during the contest, there were some troubles with testing Java solutions, all "pretests passed" (except last) submissions do not decrease score, such submissions are ignored. Once again, we apologize for any inconvenience. |
|
0
Ratings are updated. Sorry for delay.
=== Рейтинг пересчитан. Приносим извинения за задержку. |
|
0
Due to technical reasons rating for participants of the Division 2 was not updated. Soon we will fix that and update ratings for all participants.
=== Из-за технических накладок рейтинг для участников второго дивизиона пересчитан не был. Скоро мы все поправим и сделаем пересчет для всех. |
|
+2
Please, remove exclamation marks from the title. Do not cry.
|
|
+8
Sorry, 10:00. It's my fault. |
|
0
Will results appear soon?
|
|
+29
I don't know what happened with your email, but will be really great to see your round on Codeforces. I'll ask RAD to ping you about it. Thank you.
|
|
+5
I'm not sure that all Russian speakers are viewing the site in Russian.
|
|
0
It will be for typical Codeforces rounds, but not for tournaments.
|
|
0
Ignore this comment |
|
+5
I ran your solution in custom testing and it outputs "1" as mentioned in juding protocol.
|
|
+3
I'll try to investigate this issue
|
|
+25
Yep, I thought about it just few minutes before the contest. In future, we will not use division-separation on tournament rounds.
|
|
+1
Because of expected increasing load during the "Yandex Open 2011 Qualification 1", we disabled some features of the system. It will be enabled just after the contest. Thank you for your understanding.
|
|
0
Да, дивизионы в разных комнатах
= In this case we suppose that participants from the different divisions do not share rooms. |
|
+162
Вместо голосований: поставьте здесь плюс, если вам не понравилась идея разделения участников по разным контестам в зависимости от дивизиона, а нравятся больше стандартные общие контесты.
==== Instead of poll: please click "I like" on this comment if you do not like an idea to split participants into two different contests depending of their division, and you like typical common contests more. |
|
+305
Вместо голосований: поставьте здесь плюс, если вам понравилась идея разделения участников по разным контестам в зависимости от дивизиона.
==== Instead of poll: please click "I like" on this comment if you like an idea to split participants into two different contests depending of their division. |
|
+1
System testing competed. Tomorrow the contest winners will be announced!
=== Системное тестирование завершено. Завтра состоится подведение результатов! |
|
-3
It is Moscow Time (GMT +4).
|
|
0
No, any accepted solution remained accepted. I think some users which solution has been accepted after rejudge moved in front of you in the standings. You took 207th place, solved problems B and C and I think it is resonably that you loose some rating poins (-16).
|
|
+8
I has changed problem testdata. Now it contains an empty line in case of m=0. I rejudged submissions which was failed on tests (18, 21, 23, 28). Some of them passed system test. Sorry for this issue. It is one more minus for contest writers :(
|
|
0
As we know some people understood the problem correctly without clarification. Also, unfortunally, as I know the problem author wasn't around computer.
Petr, sorry again about this issue. |
|
0
Appeal granted :) Sorry for the issue. I checked all the submissions failed on test#4 and found that your solution is unique which failed because of missing empty line. |
|
0
I do not think anyone solution depends on last empty line. For example, as I see your first attempts was incorrect for n=0. Please, give me submission-id of your or anyone attemp that should pass test [n=0,two lines] but didn't pass [n=0 in the only line].
|
|
0
As I can see (please, fix me if I am wrong) the solutions for both statement meaning (before and after clarification) looks very similar and use same approaches. From the other hand, there were solutions only from two persons who passed pretest 1-4 which do not distinguish different understandings. The first test which has different answers for two understandings is 5. I repeat: only two participants made submissions which have WA on test 5. After the clarification it looks it was not difficult to change the solution according new information. So, I believe that the issue in this problem is significantly affected only two persons. We ignored their attempts submitted before clarification and moved their OK solutions to the time of the first attempts. Yes, possibly, it will be better to give a choice for participant in similar cases to decide if round should be unrated for them. But anyway it should be done before system testing. |
|
0
If you want to use problem archive to judge some solution(s) you should decide which checker to use. You should choose exactly one. In this case many things point that tester.dpr is preffered:
|
|
0
11th-30th
|
|
+3
Yes, paths in answer should be subset of paths in files.lst.
|
|
+1
Yes, we prepared a testdata manually and did a mistake. File files.lst in the test 4 is wrong. It will be fixed today. Thank you.
|
|
+12
Because of unusual registration process we have some small issue that some users registered twice on the contest. If you see such cases, please, write here I'll fix them. Thank you.
=== По причине нетипичной регистрации есть какие-то баги, которые проявляются так, что некоторые пользователи зарегистрировались на контест более одного раза. Если вы увидите такие случаи, напишите сюда. Спасибо. |
|
0
Yep, just after ~30 minutes after the contest
|
|
+13
The current plan - yes, it will be rated. Official Codefest participants will take part in this contest officially, while non-Codefest participant will take part unofficially (out of competition, with asterisk before handle). But we will recalculate ratings for both types of participants using the combined standings table.
|
|
+12
There is no "Presentation Error" verdict here, please read http://codeforces.ru/blog/entry/1028
|
|
0
Fixed, thank you.
|
|
+15
Ratings have been updated.
|
|
+8
No, it would be unfair for those who voted before
|