ACM _ICPC Kharagpur results

My Team Enigma was the first team from IIT Guwahati(ranked 36).We have not been not selected.Instead a team with much lower rank has been selected from our college(ranked 91).I think we might have been caught in some plagiarism,but the Edit distance question has codes on the internet.It is a standard question and plagiarism should not be considered as many sites have direct implementations.We used one from geeks for geeks.Either the questions should not be so standard ,else if it is it should not be marked for plagiarism.I want to know who the organizers were and how the hell are we not selected.Did not expect such goof up in such a renowned contest.Really Disappointing!!!

28 Likes

Same with us . Our team THE ART NETWORK were first from the college (ranked 24 overall) . Earlier our name was there in the list but now it is removed from the new list (the second team from our college with rank 170+ got selected ). I guess the same happened for us in the question SUBSTR . We have our standard implementations of basic algorithms like KMP , Rabin Karp , Miller Rabin test etc . We took our own standard implementation (which was based on geeks for geeks) in which we changed the code according to our needs (Used string instead of charachter array) .Everyone has to learn from some source and Is it wrong in any way if our source was geeksforgeeks ? They just can’t expect us to code form scratch (with perfection) during the contest . Even in the onsite round they allow us to carry standard implementations of algorithms with us .
We have already booked our flight tickets and have spent a lot of money on them .We are in distress and total dismay. We have lost faith in ICPC due to this Incident.
Please do the needful so that only the best go for onsite round .

Edit : Thanks a lot to ACM ICPC KGP for selecting the deserving teams for onsite competition .

24 Likes

Directly giving a standard problem(EDITDIST) and then marking standard code as plagiarism was something not expected of ACM-KGP/Codechef. There are many more cases. Overall 7th ranked team from IITKGP has not made it through. Not only the first, but also the second ranked team(overall 47) from IITG has been rejected.

Can the organisers from ACM-KGP/Codechef clarify the reason for rejection of our(Team Engima) and many more such teams. And if “plagiarism” is indeed the reason, can they just ponder upon the fact that standard problems are bound to have standard solutions and hence, near-same codes. Marking such codes as plagiarized ones is a laughable decision! Either refrain from giving such standard problems or avoid mindless plagiarism-check in such problems.

17 Likes

This is seriously wrong and acm-kgp people have made sure that kharagpur will be the least preferred location for any of the top teams coz of their screwed up process of selecting teams and their really awesome plaigarism detector as well as their intelligence by expecting codes written from scratch for really standard problems.I’m pretty sure next year they will go a step ahead and give people a simple sorting problem and disqualify all those who would use the inbuilt sort function

14 Likes

Hey I just wanna add that even we got booted for plagiarism in editdist.we were rank 13 overall ,from NITW.The professor in charge was too rude and presumptive when we talked to him.

9 Likes

I want to just add up to what my team mate @tusharmakkar08 had to say. Take the case of the problem SUBSTR , out of 822 teams only 200 odd teams solved the question . Out of that some solutions were brute forced while some others used in-built std string functions. We instead come up thinking hard with a linear time string matching algo. I think very few teams would actually think and write a fresh code for KMP. Either they would use their previously coded snippet or use the same from a standard implementation directory. So, I can only say that ACM-ICPC Kharagpur you have disappointed many . Personally, have lost faith in ICPC after this least expected incident.

12 Likes

same happened with our team … really disappointing form kgp
next year i will make it a point not to register for kgp :@
you should have mentioned we cannot use std soln

7 Likes

@dio_oid Same here. If KGP doesn’t reconsider its decision even I won’t register for the contest next time. Can’t waste hardwork and ticket money on this lame plaigarism detector. I would rather participate in a contest which gives more value to your approach and algorithm.

9 Likes

For everyone who wants to say that using standard codes is plaigarism please kindly go and check the dictionary as well as wiki and if that does not satify you see the pdf’s that have been sent to selected teams for acm-amrita which actually allows people to bring references/own codes to be used in the contest. Using your previously accumulated codes is very well in sync with the acm rules…just sharing your own code / sharing any idea or information between teams during the contest is banned. There is a very clear distinction line between plaigarism and using previous codes…hope the acm-kgp people are smart enough to understand that…and if not please talk to your more experieced counterparts at amrita :slight_smile: Just removing many of the top teams just for no reason is not at all justified…and yeah if acm-kgp has some new rules saying “not to use standard codes” then please i would like to see where is it written coz actually it’s not and you could very well be adding it right nw and for sure this thing is going to escalate because its completely unfair as well as against acm rules to disqualify teams for using some standard codes and if you want to call what we did as plaigarism then well all top guys like PETR,gennady,ACRUSH they also do plaigarism according to your screwed up definitons

9 Likes

We just now talked to the contest Director Dr P.K Biswas . He told us to mail the ACM ASIA Contest director Dr C J Hwang cjhwang88@gmail.com regarding the matter. So kindly mail all the queries regarding the results to Dr C J Hwang and hopefully they may get resolved .

Cheers !

4 Likes

RECONTEST!! RECONTEST !! RECONTEST !! RECONTEST !!

11 Likes

Recontest
there are many bugs in iitkgp online round

2 Likes

I just want to know -“will there be any changes in final list”?
If no, i don’t know what to say.
If yes, please take the necessary steps and announce the final list as soon as possible

6 Likes

Did any of the concerned teams get any response from the IIT-KGP officials. We sent a mail to them , but there has not been any response so far. If anyone has any info please do notify asap :slight_smile:

4 Likes

A list of additional teams have uploaded on the ACM Kharagpur page…look out for the results…!!

1 Like

http://acm.iitkgp.ac.in/acm_finalists_2.pdf

Some more teams have been selected.

2 Likes

Dude i totally bear with you,but in the end you have to understand that the problem setter’s are random people with NULL knowledge of programming competitions.They give us exact problem implementation and expect us to write codes from scratch when little delay can cost you your seat .The fact that none of the questions in regionals or finals are direct implementations calls for a plagiarism check.I really want to know who the problem setter was and congratulate him on screwing the aspirations of some good deserving candidates.We also have to cancel our tickets now.

4 Likes

What I believed till now was that ACM ICPC is all about knowing and applying algorithms (as they allowed us to have our standard libraries with us during the onsite also) but they have proved me wrong by their gesture of removing the deserving teams. It only conveys us that they only care about rote learning of some 1000 lines standard code and not how they are applied .

3 Likes

Hat’s off to those guys who haven’t copied and got selected.

6 Likes

@tusharmakkar08, just for the sake that you mentioned that standard libraries/algorithms that are implemented or adapted from some third party source is officially allowed by ACM-ICPC, but my teammates who went to ACM-ICPC Kanpur Onsite Round 2012 had to face a different scenario. Access to C++ STL and carrying standard algorithm implementations ‘were not’ allowed in the onsite round. All teams were taken aback and the contest director reasoned that carrying 25-page implementation is wastage of pages and thus the environment.