The OOP design part was fine but I underestimated how much they'd scrutinize interface definitions before letting us move forward.
Start by clarifying requirements and scope, then sketch a clean object-oriented design with clear separation of concerns (board, pieces, rules, game state). Implement core logic incrementally, validating each module with the interviewer before moving on, and discuss trade-offs as you go.
Pro tip: Treat the interviewer as a collaborator: pause after each module to explain your reasoning and invite feedback, showing you value iterative development and communication over silent coding.
Ask questions to define the game rules (e.g., mandatory captures, king promotion, board size) and constraints (e.g., time, language, testing). Confirm the expected level of detail for the simulation.
Identify core classes (Board, Piece, Player, Move, Game) and their responsibilities, relationships, and interfaces. Sketch a UML-like diagram or list key methods to ensure clean separation of concerns.
Start with the board and piece representation, then add move validation, capture logic, and turn management. After each module, explain your code and check with the interviewer before proceeding.
Write unit tests or walk through edge cases (e.g., multiple captures, king movement, win conditions) to verify correctness. Discuss how you would handle testing in a real codebase.
Reflect on design decisions (e.g., inheritance vs. composition, mutable vs. immutable state) and suggest possible extensions (e.g., AI opponent, networked play) to show forward thinking.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.