Please subscribe to the official Codeforces channel in Telegram via the link https://t.me/codeforces_official. ×

Top Comments

I can confirm that I had a lot of issues with wuhudsm during my time as CodeChef Head Admin. One of those issues, which was not the focus here although you can see it in screenshots regarding problem proposals and errorgorn's first comments to them: wuhudsm seem to think that vague idea of what the problem might be about, without limitations or intended solution is already a good enough thing to propose. I guess the idea is that the coordinators will figure out what to do next with this half-baked idea, maybe they will come up with an interesting solution or mend the idea into actually being a problem one can solve and therefore wuhudsm can use in a contest as author.

I understand that coming up with problems is not an exact science and one of the valid methods is to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks, then mend and form it to make a problem. The issue is that the person doing the mending should be yourself, or maybe your collaborators. Not the coordinator. It is not the coordinator's job to actually come up with a problem for you. Yes, sometimes they do this and you should be grateful, but you shouldn't make it the norm.

There was (or maybe still is, I'm too old to remember) a trend when authors posted how many problems were rejected to make their round. And it was supposed to be "the higher that number is — the better". I don't understand the logic here. The only thing a high number proves is that your internal bar for "the problem I'm not ashamed to show the coordinator" is waaaay too low. wuhudsm decided to go even further and send "not a problem"s to coordinators (plural). I guess it kinda makes sense to send it to several coordinators at the same time because it increases the probability that one of them will come up with an actual problem while looking at the shit you sent.

I was very surprised when I saw that wuhudsm is setting CF rounds, while also maintaining "The Forces" community whatever the fuck that is and people seem to like his problems and be thankful for his contribution. I thought "maybe he got better" but I guess he just doubled down on his shitty behaviour and found targets that are kinder than me (not a dig at current CF/CC coordinators, nothing wrong with being nice to potential problemsetters).

I'm really glad that errorgorn was brave enough to publicly talk about this situation. I think we would all benefit from having better insight into coordinators' work. It is not an easy side gig, and a good coordinator is the thing that separates good rounds from bad.

We are carefully looking into the situation and will inform you when we make a decision.

"Proposing rejected problems to another round."

But they were not just rejected problems, some of them were even accepted.

The biggest issue is the lack of communication of when a problem we have seen is going to used in some round.

Psychotic_D was taking a session on problem-setting day before yesterday. While he was entering Polygon, one could see several CF alt accounts auto saved. Fortunately, I took a note of that and found EndlessDreams's account was also saved by him. Here is the image supporting my claim.

Ok, he gave 4 bad examples which hid the actual example.

That definitely looks like cheating. Thanks for providing the evidence. MikeMirzayanov please look into it (the 4th submission pair)

I wasn't suspicious at first, but what is this?

"Lol delete it I want to participate not to test"

Delete what? Did he send you an access link to a testing gym?

Now tell me one thing am I delusional or all the submisions are direct overlap with each other with clever changes to remove plagarism.

You are delusional. The code style is completely different. Maybe they could've cheated by sharing solutions with one another and they came up with code separately but you can't infer that from the codes.

I have participated on rounds from people that wanted me to test them. Am I a cheater too?

Edit: Looking at the codes again, the fourth one does strike me as suspicious. The first 3 are either too short or too different and I give the fifth one the benefit of the doubt. This blog had so much nonsense that it made me disregard the actual evidence, lol. Please go straight to the point instead of doing a fanfic about dominater being paid to defend the guy.

"just send all these rejected problems..."

He specifically mentioned OCPC and not other CF contests, and went on to talk about OCPC logistics specifically. In any case, he also asked you to tell him if you do send those problems.

Please do not ignore things selectively, especially when things are as confidential as problems being considered for rated contests.

And there is more evidence (max-average-path) of this being done before he gave this advice to you. So clearly you were proposing problems to multiple contests before that advice. Quite disingenuous of you to silently shift the blame onto him.

I have coordinated a couple of local contests where such issues happened too, and it was very clearly a breach of mutual trust. But that is nowhere near the violation of trust that seemed to happen here — problems being leaked for rated, public contests.

One thing I think people should take away is that coordinators can also be participants in each others' rounds, if they do not know any problems. No two coordinators will discuss an author's problems unless they are authorized to do so. The only people involved in your contest are you, your co-authors, the coordinator(s) assigned to you, and your testers. Coordinators do not have a secret group chat where they discuss all your problems over a round-table and decide whether a problem goes in the round or not. And I think you are aware of this, since you submitted problems rejected for one round, to a coordinator for another round.

Please do better.

A quick skim through the submissions shows at least three code styles (one with the comment on the top, one who uses #define LL int, and one who uses typedef long long ll).

Some of the gossips I heard as this account is controlled by six China NOI Silver player. (I don't believe) But even six best player can't solve problem so fast, I think.

I don't think it's impossible. If you give each person 1 problem each (except one doing A and B), ~21 minutes (the maximum time the account took for a problem) sounds doable.

Seems like an obvious cheating to me as well. Such an over-performance on his friend's contest just can't be a coincidence. And those people are friends for sure:  But it seems to be well-prepared, so it will be hard to prove.

One of the things I have noticed in Psychotic_D's submissions is that he almost never uses spaces in his code. But any pre-written code he uses is formatted way better. Look at his solution for problem E, it contains more spaces than all solutions for A-D together. You may notice the small piece of code there that still doesn't contain proper spacing. And you know what? That's exactly the difference between his AC and TLE solutions. So, basically, he prepared a well-formatted TLE solution to make things look more realistic and knew in advance what to fix, but did it in his own code style. I would say, super fast for his level. In just two minutes he was able to submit solution, get TLE verdict, debug, fix, test (multi-testing in interactive problem for a second) and submit the modified solution.

Looks like an obvious cheating with pre-written code.

All this looks extremely suspicious and I would recommend ban wuhudsm from problem setting on Codeforces and skip all Psychotic_D's submissions in wuhudsm's round.

I would love to encourage people to upvote the_pain's post for better visibility.

cc: MikeMirzayanov

The CF account (SH00QiNan) actually did participate in yesterday's contest, and solved 6 problems (all but pF). However, the account was later marked unrated, so probably some admin knows about this. As Zanite mentioned, the different coding styles were also used on submissions of the CF account. With the suspicious order of submissions, it's pretty likely that it's a shared account.

If after seeing 222750300 and 222766998 you still assume he is delusional, you should probably see a doctor.

Points 1 and 3 are not really big issues.

The main issue is point 2. The point is that you proposed problems that were accepted by 2 different coordinators, am I not wrong? You are giving 2 different parties the impression that a problem can be potentially used in their contest. It's wrong to write in bold Proposing rejected problems to another round since you are Proposing accepted problems to another round

If I am not wrong, I told you I wanted to use 1990F, but you just asked me to use another problem and completely did not tell me that you (presumably) had already given 1990F to another round, instead insisting very hard to use another 2F. This cannot be justified by "I used to think that due to differences in taste, a problem rejected by one coordinator might not be rejected by another", you just didn't want to admit that you knowingly proposed the same problem to 2 coordinators. Even going so far as to create 2 seperate proposals $$$^\dagger$$$! Am I wrong about any of this?

$$$^\dagger$$$ For reference, to people who might not be familiar with how cf proposals work, authors upload problems as proposals, which get tagged onto contest. It is possible for proposals to be moved to different contest but the comments from earlier coordinators will still remain. For example, in the problem 1889F - Doremy's Average Tree, it was originally proposed to me for Codeforces Global Round 24, then they wanted to use it in a round coordinated by a different coordinator. Of course, they notified me about it. But even if they didn't they used the same proposal so that the coordinator of the new round knows that it has been seen by me before, since my comments are there

As a lot of comments above me have already said, the fourth submission pair you provided in this blog is a good evidence for the claim you are making. I hope that someone with appropriate power will take action soon.

I am writing this comment in response to this:

Please correct me where I am wrong and help me in making him pay for his actions.

I believe the elephant in the room that we need to address in these "exposing cheaters" blogs is the fact that the blog doesn't immediately go to its main points, which takes more of HQ's time to process and take action.

To me, the important pieces of information in this blog are:

  • The submission timing screenshots.
  • The evidence you present: the submission pairs.
  • Probably, to an extent, the group you believe the cheater is part of.

The other parts aren't necessary for HQ or other relevant people to take action, are they?

The more irrelevant information you include, the less credible your blog becomes, and the less people want to believe your evidence. I would really appreciate it if "exposing cheater" blogs were straight to the point, presenting the objective facts on why the person is cheating, not filled with other unnecessary information merely to attract attention.

I humbly accept defeat. Your brilliant evidence has indeed proven beyond a doubt this guy is a cheater. /s

where is your proof?? he made a very reasonable error that anyone can make, forgetting to clear a graph in between queries

Mike doesn't look into anything until it gets hundreds of upvotes lol. That's why cheaters set rounds and only get punished 8 months later.

nice proof :clown:

did you even use a diffchecker? he just forgot to clear the graph.

Tourist had several bugs in D-F and he fixed those in 2 — 4 mins each time (though he had multiple ones on F). he must also be a cheater now.

About the formatting issue, he gave a very reasonable answer for it, and i ask you to actually go to his submissions and check other problems where he had to implement graph based algorithms, they are coded with very similiar styles (the actual code and not the formatting). Somebody else coded E for him, yet kept his style but formatting different? What a story!

I am also skeptical about such a nice performance on a friend's contest, doesnt mean I accuse him with such baseless and illogical proof. Expected better from a master

Since i was hosting this session, i can confirm this Screenshot is true. Sad to read this. But from his skills i am not really sure is he cheating or not... cause not everyone can explain problem setting etc if they are not decently pro.

+39

"Errmmm, actually"

why do you need to check things? i normally first read my code before going to debug, its extremely possible to get this obvious error from just reading the code.

people resubmit in the same minute often realizing a silly mistake. I personally also have several examples (including just last contest G, use a diff checker to know my error)

3000IQ yuo correct, sir.

EndlessDreams also do compile error! Must be a cHeater, How someone on a master level to compile error! 208444771

+35

As a tester, I wish good luck to participants!

How does this have anything to do with the blog?

alright, and why do I trust a person, whose post feels like personal hate, because it's targeting someone's insecurity.

Also, his skipped are in the past, what about yours, you have 3 contests skipped?

Okay let's settle this.

  • Yes wuhudsm is friend of mine and we setted the contests together. It doesn't mean he provided me solutions, then where are the other friends of ours from the TheForces community?
  • Proof from the DC chat:

Screenshot-2024-07-21-150219

Screenshot-2024-07-21-150752

  • And I always start from D/E because I want to be sure that if I can solve those or not, because I do not want the negative delta and I know I can do ABC fast enough.

  • Now, regarding the point where you mentioned I didn't solve problem B in the last contest. So, many didn't and you know the real reason beind it? lemme show you the reason, and the chat I attached is with tyr0Whiz.

Screenshot-2024-07-21-150509

  • How you know that I do not have a job? Now do I have to show the offer letter publically?

Screenshot-2024-07-21-150909
image uploader

Ok i didnt inspect this one that carefully. It does look like cheating. It's like the fourth in the list and the other ones didn't convince me so i just skimmed through it

dxqwq almost certainly is innocent, you should not throw accusations of cheating around as it lowers the credibility for the rest of your claims.

The only good evidence in this thread is the fourth submission pair.

E2 with $$$100$$$ queries

hint 1
hint 2(almost the solution)
answer
bonus 2
+32

Bro does NOT have a sense of humour/friends

+32

Idk about the post, but why are Priyash acraider and jaskaran tagged lol

think of random things you can do to an array in the shower

The link is broken. My friend saved it before it vanished so I reuploaded it.

Python uses different logic for modulo for negative numbers. For python -13 % 5 = 2. For c++, rust, java, etc, -13 % 5 = -3

On komurasakiCANNOT LEARN NEW IDEAS, 42 hours ago
+27

This is an extremely cruel and narrow-minded perspective, especially coming from a person higher rated than you by a massive 2 rating. If you wish to code, go for it! Perhaps you can decrease the difficulty of your practice, and build up to a certain level. Do note — improving isn't supposed to be easy. If you can't meet your supposed expectations, there is no shame in solving easier problems if the harder ones are not productive.

FYI that does not qualify as proof, having access to problems in advance is already a sufficient unfair advantage. Whether you used said access or not should be verified by CF access logs if they still have them. Given the situation, I would ask somebody from the HQ to give a definitive public answer.

Why are you defending him so much, are you also the part of his group?

What you do is lynching. We don't do that in developed countries. All suspicions that arise must be addressed by the administration in a transparent official process. There's no need to make a personal spectacle out of it.

Now Dhurvil is caught red-handed. I urge the ban of these cheaters from CF and ban their IP address so that they may not form new accounts.

MikeMirzayanov KAN Dominater069 acraider Priyansh31dec lookcook pkhaustov

I read your blog and summarized some of the issues you raised about me (if I misunderstood, please correct me):

  • Proposing many low-quality problems, increasing the workload for the coordinator. My skill level is indeed limited. Some high-rated contestants may think that some of my problems are of poor quality, but I was not aware of this. I will remember this lesson and perhaps exit the problem setting for a period of time, waiting until my level rises before returning.

  • Proposing rejected problems to another round. I used to think that due to differences in taste, a problem rejected by one coordinator might not be rejected by another. Now, it is clear that my mistake was not fully communicating with the previous coordinator (errorgorn). In any case, I believe that "bad problems" will not appear in any round, as I trust the coordinators to recognize and correct my mistakes.

  • It was only recently that I learned that half the problems in wuhudsm's OCPC round were actually problems I had seen before. As you mentioned in the first image, "just send all these rejected problems...", that is what I did. After coordination by another coordinator, some of the problems were accepted. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning? Pls correct me.

Overall, thank you for your criticism. I will temporarily exit problem setting to improve my skill level and strive to propose high-quality problems. For each problem I propose, I will ensure not to submit it to multiple rounds before its status is confirmed, to avoid increasing the coordinators' workload. If anyone has any criticisms or suggestions, please feel free to let me know.

Well I almost follow the same strategy.

I submit a WA first and then never submit. That works for me.

Good blog. Finally, someone writes up the blog I've been procrastinating on for the last 4 years...

we will never know who has the best cheating practices

i solved the problem in at most 70 queries (sqrt(n))

if we denote by size[node] the number of possible location in the subtree of "node" and we denote by size_valid the number of possible locations if we ask about the node that minimizes abs(size[node]-size_valid/2)

  • if the response was 1 : so size_valid will be size[node] because the location will be in the subtree of node
  • if the response was 0 : so size_valid will be size_valid — the number of possible locations that hasn't any child that can be possible + 1 if the lca of all possible nodes isn't the root

in the worst case childs of the lca of the possible nodes has the same size: size[node] in the worst case size[node] will be sqrt(size_valid) for sqrt(size_valid) nodes and size_valid after each query will decrease by at least 2*sqrt(size_valid)-1 (sqrt(size_valid) for the subtree of the choosen node and sqrt(size_valid)-1 for the nodes that hasn't any child that can be possible location else it will decrease by x+size_valid/x-1 with the same logic ) so if n can be solved in sqrt(n) than n-2*sqrt(n)+1 can be solved in sqrt(n-2*sqrt(n)+1)=sqrt(n)-1 so for n=5000 only 70 queries can be enough

Big fan btw :)

Lmao he just changed pair to 2d dp .How tf did it survive plag check

A word to people newly clicked into this blog:

Please upvote/downvote the comments after reading the whole blog&comments. Many people are giving immediate upvotes when they find a message which seems logic. I mean Psychotic's comments.

+22

First, this is low quality bait, most of them (maybe actually all of them) have graduated long ago.

Second, if anyone knows the actual Egyptian teams, they are welcome to post it here

Your opinions seem strongly biased as well. How do you find the audacity to call someone you don't know with such names and accusations without thinking of the effects it may leave on them while there is no solid proof? It's pretty toxic to insist on him cheating if you don't have any proof, and it's basically cyber-bullying at this point.

An insignificant addition but I always write algorithmic complexity as \mathcal{O}(N) $$$\mathcal{O}(N)$$$ instead of just O(N) $$$O(N)$$$ purely for aesthetic reasons.

Note that to view the difference properly you might want to change your math renderer into "Common HTML" or "SVG" (you can do it by right-clicking a LaTeX formula):

Once again, asking wuhudsm does not prove or disprove anything. Deleting a discord message does not prevent access. A link can be copied to a clipboard, stored in the browser cache, etc. Only CF can tell us if you opened this gym link.

I presume by "being honest" you mean posting screenshots? I appreciate that you and wuhudsm are open to discussing this situation publicly, including your messaging history, but it does not qualify as proof. A clear conflict of interest must be settled through an official authority (CF administration), not via the witness statements.

where is your proof? coincidence is not a proof

check amenotiomoi , It's alt, obviously.

With a 2800 alt, what is the rating of the main account? maybe even LGM. I'm asking the blogger to find him.

he has 3space tab, maybe he is dxqwq?

I am not sure Mike saw it. But some of the evidences in this post are 100% bullet-proof, unlike the ones from the previous post. Please see the discussion above. Don't ask people to stop attracting attention to cheaters. Instead thank them for doing such work.

Disagree with this opinion: don't set problems like this again.

This problem('s statement) is much more beautiful than that (even if i am a Chinese, i still think the problem you mentioned is too complex for me to appreciate).

And most of all, this is an atcoder BEGINNER contest (I do agree with that on a ARC or AGC original-idea-problem is important), reusing some beautiful ideas should be encouraged: If evan ABC could not introduce this one, how people around the world could know it.

Bravo.

I think \times is also a good choice: $$$2\times 4$$$.

I think we shouldn't use program language in math formula: $$$a=a+1$$$ or $$$a\gets a+1$$$ a\gets a+1?

I think we should use a\pmod b=c $$$a\bmod b=c$$$ instead of a\mod b=c $$$a\mod b=c$$$, and use a\equiv b\pmod c $$$a\equiv b\pmod c$$$ instead of other strange ways.

GCD has it's \gcd $$$\gcd$$$, LCM doesn't. But LCM has \operatorname{lcm} $$$\operatorname{lcm}$$$ though looks no difference from \text{lcm} $$$\text{lcm}$$$.

As Psychotic_D mentioned that he starts the contest after 30-40 mins to check if he can solve D and E problems but there is one problem with that , your solution timings directly coincidences with another one of your friend EndlessDreams which sends you the solutions and you change the plag on that problems and submit that and as you know it takes 30-40 mins to change ABCD problem which you claim to use the time for solving harder problems. Below are some of the screenshots of your past contest submissions.

Screenshot-2024-07-21-155424 Screenshot-2024-07-21-155335 Screenshot-2024-07-21-155359 Screenshot-2024-07-21-155410

As you can see the some contests are started from A when he either knew the questions before hand and someone was helping him and others were started an hour after that and started submitting solutions one after other and do i need to tell u he only submitted the problems which his friends sent. one other thing i noticed the unpredicibilty of his performance, one day he is an IM second day he just recieved a -100 delta. I never saw an IM who has that skills how can go from M to IM and back to CM in just 5-6 contests. Looks like something fishy is going on. Let us all make CF a healthy competitive platform by banning these so called programmers. Thank you

pkhaustov Are you just going to ignore that the OP also knows the accused cheater personally as well? Isn't he biased as well?

As someone who knows none of the people personally, I think that most of the "proof" in this thread is weak.

In particular, discussing someone's internship status and rating fluctuations are low blows.

+19

Yousef_Salama 2nd grade, registered 13 years ago! lol, thats crazy

You going to ICPC proves nothing. And btw different colleges have different criteria so, many tier-1 colleges like IITs, BITS, NITs have multiple team participating so they tend to select their top teams even though they are above the cutoff and many tier-3 colleges like yours have very few teams participating so to diversify different colleges participating they select many colleges that are way below the rankings of many tier-1 bottom teams.

Dont boast just because you are selected for regionals. for all we care you could have cheated your way like him.

It was an online contest after all.

If you cant support then please keep your opinion to yourself if you cant understand the proofs given.

Auto comment: topic has been updated by de_sousa (previous revision, new revision, compare).

tourist failed his strategy 10 mins after he came to confession : )

just like I fail my strategy to solve problems.

He starts from D/E, usually when his friends get AC on those problems.

prove it, which friends? EndlessDreams has been inactive for a long time now. can you send me specific contests where he copied from EndlessDreams instead of just accusing

Also, he knows nothing; he could not even solve B in the second last contest, which he gave

He only had 6 minutes left in the contest after C (i reckon he was trying to solve F in the middle but then switched to C when he was running out of time to save some rank)

He has been skipped twice earlier in rated contests due to cheating. His rating even reduced a good points indicating that he copied from someone.

That is true, however doesnt mean he cheated now.

He earlier cheated from amenotiomoi and EndlessDreams, as per my investigation.

yes, pls make the investigation public, i want to see it too

These are the 4 points i found in your blog, each containing nothing of substance. The other guy atleast made some attempt at proofs, you did nothing.

tourist casually doing tourist things

after a contest, about half of the participants wish they had employed this strategy

Firstly, ICPC rankings are given to teams, not to individuals.(The fourth highest rated person from the same college as him has gotten plagiarized on Codechef and has multiple skipped submissions on codeforces but still his team did extremely well at ICPC Regionals, for instance).

Secondly, This is just way too much evidence for someone to be innocent imo.

A pedantic $$$TeX$$$ nician here...

For math operators like lcm, I suggest using \mathop{\mathrm{lcm}}, because it gives a better spacing control than just \text{lcm}, and also it works as a big operator, like: $$$\displaystyle \mathop{\mathrm{lcm}}_{k=1}^{n} a_k$$$ (\gcd also works as a big operator, so my definition provides feature parity with \gcd).

In the case of mod, using \pmod as a binary operator may not be a best choice, because \pmod is originally meant for your latter usage (parenthesized modulo). I think \mathbin{\mathrm{mod}} is more appropriate when it's used as a binary operator ($$$a \mathbin{\mathrm{mod}} b$$$), or maybe \mathbin{\%} looks even better: $$$a \mathbin{\%} b$$$.

For $$$\times$$$, I would avoid using it except for the matrix dimension (like "an $$$n \times m$$$ matrix"), because avoiding $$$\times$$$ and $$$\div$$$ is mostly a convention in math typography (except for elementary school textbooks), but I admit this is largely a matter of taste.

revisiting this, I code golfed it another way, and now it is a bit faster

https://judge.yosupo.jp/submission/222465

Wonderful blog!

Just curious, what app did you use to make the drawings? they're really beautiful!

On djm03178Definition of speedforces?, 37 hours ago
+16

Disagree with this definition; in particular, I think you absolutely can get a speedforces effect from just the problems being too easy.

For the sake of an extreme example, say you have a contest in which there are 1000 problems, all div2A difficulty. You will not have any huge gaps between problems, in fact the leaderboard might look very reasonable as people's speeds are naturally distributed in some bell curve-like shape. But you cannot say that in such a contest, it is not the case that "speed is more significant compared to being able to solve harder problems".

In fact, I'd argue a contest like this is in a lot of ways worse than your example, because speed is the only thing you can improve to get a better rank (while in your definition, you can still improve at problem solving to break out of the speedforces range).

Now of course real contests aren't that extreme, but even then the effect of running out of time before encountering problems you need to think to solve is relatively common in Codeforces rounds (or at least it used to be 2-3 years ago; these days problems are thankfully generally harder. Except for cases like Codeforces Round 959 sponsored by NEAR (Div. 1 + Div. 2) where F and G were really easy for their positions).

thank you ^-^

i used excalidraw (https://excalidraw.com/)

It is perfectly fine and commonplace to invite your friends to test your round if that's what your last question is about. It indeed happens via sharing an invitation link with them.

And if you guys are happy by skipping my submissions, then it's fine.

Again don't blame wuhudsm, he did nothing wrong here.

I am not fan of rating or rank, if I am capable I will achieve that in near future again.

Thanks for your reasoning.

Psychotic_D do you remember something?

"It's easy to bypass MOSS, I think.

Someday (today) cheaters will know they don't have to share codes, sharing ideas is enough."

The submissions look awfully suspicious. I urge codeforces to look into it. MikeMirzayanov

finally satyam343 round

On komurasakiCANNOT LEARN NEW IDEAS, 44 hours ago
+14

have you ever diagnosed ADHD? because I have the same issue

Any proof?

And I don't think it's appropriate to write it at here, maybe making a blog will be better.

i suppose this is sarcastic right?

Wrong question. Geothermal how much did you pay?

buddy, you got — ve contribution, 0 contests, has 1 problem solution, wtf? Brain teasers are the one for you (of course if you got one (brain)).

how about you revealing your identity before calling someone a donkey/kid, why so scared

lol, just imagine the level of hate towards someone, that you are abusing the people who are just giving valid points in his favour XD

yeah but that doesn't give you authority to call him kid or donkey. you are the one crossing line here

Yep. That's 100% cheating. I clicked through 10 random submissions and they look NOTHING alike. Meanwhile these are practically the same minus trying to obfuscate it with sum.

It decreases my and thousands of other Indian's motivation seeing this cheater becoming International Master, Please ban him for the sake of codeforces.

OMG ORZ satyam343 I AM YOUR BIGGEST FAN

mate, I just pointed out the problems in your blog, To be honest, it felt like if you are someone from the same organization as him, and feel inferior.

No personal grudges, I am not commenting anything about the accusations, cause I got no view of my own.

I only pointed two things

  1. Hating for not grabbing a job despite high rated, so according to you, High rated is directly equivalent to a intern or a job?

  2. Pointing out skipped contests from past(2 years back), bring something recent, for proofs.

Now when i pointed you out for the same, you defending that it's someone else's account(which is also a point of suspicion, like what are you doing with his account?) and rather than talking logically, you trying to throw dirt on me, to shut me down?

+12

The team selection test for Egypt will take place in a few weeks, so no, nobody knows the Egyptian teams yet.

guess what dhruvil has done now which shows he did cheat??
This guy rn

this code works in sqrt(n) queries in the worst case

this case is 4901 nodes

  • adj[1]={2,3,...,71}

  • adj[i]={i-70,i+70} for all i in [72,4831]

  • adj[i]={i-70} for all in [4832,4901]

and at each query you ask for a child between 2 and 71 and the response is 0 at the 70'th query you get the response

you guess the correct answer in the some testcases in the 25-th test at 70 queries

In problem F, solution 1:

We notice that a local maximal polygon segment $$$[l,r]$$$ must satisfy $$$\min(a_l−1,a_r+1)\ge \mathbf{2}(a_l+...+a_r)$$$. (or $$$l=1,r=n$$$).

shouldn't it be:

...must satisfy $$$\min(a_l−1,a_r+1)\ge (a_l+...+a_r)$$$.

Is the extra "2" a typo?

Fixed

Thinkagain has mentioned. EndlessDreams and Amenotiomoi have multiple alts, which I don't know. CF admins can reveal that.

ok so no proof here

That's simply baseless bro, he solved in any random order and then realised oh F, I will lose rank so now shift to C. I don't believe this.

you dont have to believe it, but several people solve problems in weird orders, and this is irrelevant to the discvussion, i was just hypothesizing over what happened. He only had 6 minutes left after C for B, so naturally enough time

It doesn't prove that he is not cheating now. A coin has two sides, don't forget that.

agreed, but you are innocent until proven guilty

I saw many submissions of EndlessDreams/amenotiomoi and Psychotic_D, I already said that I am following him from the past 1 year. It was a general trend.

Please post them, sorry but i dont trust you

It looks like the blog got deleted.

https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/131781?mobile=false

another high ranking cheater. Look into it