About five years ago I wrote a blog post warning that I thought it was a bad idea to design math olympiads to be completely untrainable, because I think math olympiads should be about talent development rather than just talent identification, yada yada yada. So now I want to say the other direction: I also… Continue reading Brianchon is fair game
Year: 2024
NP-hard advice questions
Sometimes I get asked broad advice questions on solving problems, for example questions like: How do I know when to switch or prioritize approaches I come up with? How do I know which points or lines to add in geometry problems? How can I tell if I’m making progress on a problem? How can I… Continue reading NP-hard advice questions
Against exploitable rubrics
Editorial note: this post was mostly written in February 2023. Any resemblance to contests after that date is therefore coincidental. Background A long time ago, rubrics for the IMO and USAMO were fairly strict. Out of seven, the overall meta-rubric looks like: 7: Problem solved 6: Tiny slip (and contestant could repair) 5: Small gap… Continue reading Against exploitable rubrics
January newsflash
Here’s a mix of several publicity-related things I’d like to broadcast. AlphaGeometry A lot of you have already heard the buzz about the AlphaGeometry news and Nature paper. (I’ve known about this paper for a while now, so I’m glad I can finally talk about it!) I managed to snag a cameo in the DeepMind… Continue reading January newsflash
MOHS was a mistake
I remember reading a Paul Graham essay about how people can’t think clearly about parts of their identity. In my students, I have never seen this more clearly than when people argue about the difficulty of problems. Some years ago I published a chart of my ratings of problem difficulty, using a scale called MOHS.… Continue reading MOHS was a mistake
Power Overwhelming 