ash1794's blog

World Finals Problems in GYM
By ash1794, 10 years ago, In English

I've always wondered why there aren't any World Final sets in the Gym. I know we could always solve it in the baylor site, but it's always wonderful with the leaderboard giving a virtual contest. Will the previous world finals be ever added to the Gym at any point of time?

  • Vote: I like it
  • +23
  • Vote: I do not like it

»
10 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -8 Vote: I do not like it

It's your chance to add first world final to the gym. you will be first person who add world final to the gym.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    10 years ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    I'm not a coach yet.

    Why the down votes? For stating that I'm not a coach?

    → Reply
»
10 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +12 Vote: I do not like it

It might be done intentionally to prevent young coders from solving WF's for fun. You should solve past World Finals only in order to prepare to your own World Final, and it is rather stupid to look at the problemset if you are not going to finals this year but hope to qualify someday later.

So, it's probably some kind of a foolproof. If you want to solve WF's then go to Bailor, but as soon as they are added to Gym we will have a generation of naive coders who will later regret it.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    10 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +6 Vote: I do not like it

    Huh, I have never thought about it this way, but it seems very reasonable! On the other hand — many people will never go to WF :).

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    10 years ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +36 Vote: I do not like it

    I don't really understand why World Finals are so special in that sense. Nobody says you should solve NEERC while you haven't advanced to it, or RCC finals only for those who are in top50(there is rcc final in gym)

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      10 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +23 Vote: I do not like it

      I agree with Alex. Lot of gyms shouldn't even be attended before a proper base or some proper training. It beats the purpose. But that's our choice isn't it? Should we want to give it as a team in a contest env gym is the best there is out there! I feel it should be up to the 'naive' coder's choice whether to attend or not rather than decide first that it's not the right place to host such an contest.

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      10 years ago, # ^ |
      ← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +19 Vote: I do not like it

      I heard about it from snarknews. Though that discussion was about why are WF's not included in opentrains system (in fact they are included but access is restricted for non-finalists) and I only applied similar logic here.

      Anyway, it would be interesting to hear the official point of view from Mike or someone.

      P.S. With no regard to former and not to offend anyone, «Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.» (Robert J. Hanlon)

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        10 years ago, # ^ |
        ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +18 Vote: I do not like it

        I also can't understand why WF contests are so special. We did them recently; maybe that logic "don't waste this problemset" was good 10 years ago — first of all, number of available contests was much lower that time, and also WF problemsets from those years are really weird special. But last few problemsets look like a normal ACM contests — well, I am not a coach, this only my point of view as a contestant. Maybe every good coach can show that WF problemsets are very-very special :) And they don't look very hard — I guess a lot of contests from Petrozavodsk are harder. If 5th or 6th team of some university is good enough to participate in PZ camp — they are also strong enough for WF problemset.

        Nowadays number of available contests is really huge, I guess that even most of WF teams don't have so many trainings that they run out of problemsets :)

        BTW, are there some teams ignoring WF problemsets even before first WF attempt, to save them for second one — because at that moment they should fit even better? It sounds natural if people believe that main secret of doing well at WF is solving those problemsets right before WF :D

        So I can't get the point behind blocking WF problemsets from people in such a way — solve it at livearchive if you really want it. Why don't we block PZ problemsets from div2 guys then? Why there are no requirements like attend PZ camp first? We can see a lot of people trying PZ contests in gym and doing ~1 problem there) Why nobody tries to prevent it? Or PZ problemsets don't help in preparing for WF, therefore it is nothing bad in wasting them? Or they aren't good enough? :) I understand logic behind calm down, this problemset is not for you right now, but I don't understand why it is applied only to WF tasks.

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          10 years ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it +16 Vote: I do not like it

          Well, its easy to make contest harder than World Finals, and not only Petrozavodsk contests fit into this definition; almost any OpenCup or Petrozavodsk from newly coming author and/or their group is harder.

          But i did not heard about Petrozavodsk (or some other) contest, which was considered by most of experts to be done in World Finals style. Partially it is related to distribution of coding and math, partially — to algorithms used (and algorithms not used — it is important too).

          So reason is next: we have only World Finals as contests following World Finals style. Petrozavodsk contests are very different, so no point to keeping track for them. As far as i heard, some coaches use restrictions even on Regionals (like NEERC).

          And as far as i can remember, some teams used tactics "lets keep some WF for the second time"; it have another point — if last year WF was more or less widely discussed, then chances to remember some of those discussions after 2 years are less than after one year.

          → Reply