Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're often not expected to complete these. It's just comparing to see how far you get, what engineering tradeoffs you pick, how you do vs that other guy. That's the difference between startup culture and big company culture. Big companies get away with accurate estimates, story points, burndown charts. Work is rounded down to what's accomplishable in a week. Startups just have an infinite blob of things to do and n…
It's just comparing to see how far you get, how you do vs that other guy. Which is a BS rationale, of course. If you (at lease claim to) respect the candidate's time, then you don't give out slippery-slope assignments with fake / unknowable goalposts, period. There is no benefit to this tactic that can possibly outweigh the basic insult and the egregious waste of their time. Startups just have an infinite blob of thi…
A standard question might be "Build a chess game in 4 hours". Now that's clearly impossible. So you shouldn't take offense at not being able to do it.
But part of the job is being able to break down a complex task and propose a solution. There will be people who jump into architecture and stuff on how to build it in 4 weeks. No, you've got 4 hours, think about it.
So you have to scope down the question, and see what you can tackle in these few hours.
A good applicant will ask what the goal is. Is it entertainment? How about a checkers game instead? Is it for practice? Maybe it can be a "mate in 1" game with some hardcoded moves.
How would you even render the pieces? Would you reverse engineer lichess? Do you build a plaintext prototype? Do you TDD possible moves? How would you do user input and selection?
You get points for coming up with possible solutions. There's going to be some whiz who probably made some battle chess prototype for Ludum Dare. That's fine. They're smart, they get points. But most of the points will come from the learning process to the results.
It is designed to filter out the people who walk out when they see the problem.