yep…it is totally a deciding factor for our college for regionals 
1 Like
How can you guarantee that all penalties in question 1 is due to problem statement only ? There will be some teams who got penalties due to some other reason.
Another solution is change judge. Give AC to both ( with leading zeroes and without leading zeroes )
11 Likes
The only part not clear was leading zeros right? But one may have got that by seeing examples. There was an example case which clarified it, and ofcourse teams would have run their code on example. Dude, there are more serious problems in this contest like wrong testcases or wrong solutions. This problem is nothing compared to them.
5 Likes
Exactly.
The sample test case did not have leading zeroes.
see here it is clearly mentioned that resulting number is allowed to have leading zeros . then the whole point of checking the test case is useless
8 Likes
Do you happen to have pic of the constraints of 4th question (PENS) ? If yes, can you please share it?
The length of sting S to be constructed <= 10^6
Number of smaller strings K <= 10^5
Length of smaller strings <= 20
All strings consist of letters ‘a’…‘t’
1 Like
yea you are right spam cc
1 Like
Won’t it be better if instead of removing penalty, rejudging of first question is demanded ? Removing penalty would help even those who submitted WA. While rejudging won’t.
7 Likes
If you got WA in P1, quite evidently you’re not a “pr0”, as the given test cases made it extremely clear what outputs they were expecting. 
Run your code for the given test cases before submitting.
We solved P1 in 17mins with AC.
1 Like
dude we do run the test cases but it was clearly mentioned leading zeroes are allowed "dats why we didnt changed our code for that
1 Like
Yes. It hurts so much, they put conflicting things in the last lines and to change that at the 50th minute is something expected from novice platforms not codechef. And it is not even any ordinary contest, it is my dream , ACM ICPC. Please remove penalty from the 1st question.
but it was mentioned that answer may cintain leading zeroes and we did not care for it. But later they said, output should not have leading zeroes. I think it nothing related to anyone being a pro . Do not brag of yourself being one.
Codechef has to remove penalty because it was due to its own ignorance.
Fairly good idea.
1 Like
yeah right, let us spam CC and force them to remove the penalty
2 Likes
We had the question written in 10 mins and second quick too …
But, leading zeros got us penalty of 1 hr . So, kindly REJUDGE the question or DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT … I know about the test case but as we were unclear we thought both the answers would be accepted .
There should be some criteria for us .
Please spam CC .
5 Likes
Such short contests needs continuous motivation for solving questions. After so much penalties in only 1st problem (just because of leading zero problem) one doesn’t have that level of enthusiasm for solving further questions. This online contest shouldn’t have ended this way.
4 Likes
Better cancel this contest and host a new one.
9 Likes
To all my fellow coders and organizers of ICPC
I believe the whole system of rank decider in CodeChef is totally flawed. You guys should consider team above in rank who solved all the submitted questions earlier. Make it simple don’t try to complex it with peanlties and who solved first. If by chance two teams completed the questions on same time then judge by wrong submissions or some other rules. Our team was so good and we lost to other team of our college., just because of the time penalties of this stupid question. Hope you guys look into this which i think you will not
Regards
DesmondMiles
3 Likes
this mistake destroys my dream.
I just solve it in 15 min but getting WA because of leading zero.
finally, I figure out after 2 hrs. untile I got 5 WA submission.
WTF
1 Like