3 ms·
> A person who has never seen chess will spend more of the interview just trying to figure out what is meant by the Knight's move. I mean he explicitly spells
by xienze 6y ago
> A person who has never seen chess will spend more of the interview just trying to figure out what is meant by the Knight's move.
I mean he explicitly spells it out as part of the problem. I highly doubt in an interview they'll just plop down a term like "knight's move" and refuse to clarify what is meant by it, if necessary. It's not exactly the sort of thing that takes living a life of privilege to understand.
- jeffbee 6y agoThe difference is on the margin. If typical candidates who reach the optimal solution reach it in the last 5 minutes, and if it takes 5 minutes to discuss with a non-chess-playing candidate how a knight moves, then you have severely disadvantaged that candidate.
- mym1990 6y agoIsn't this somewhat dependent on the outlook of the interviewer? I know interviewers will greatly vary, but is it not more important to consider what my path to the solution was, rather than what the actual answer is? I would be more inclined towards a candidate that knew nothing of a problem but was able to explore a way to the answer vs. a candidate that knew the answer simply because of hours of rehearsal
- xienze 6y ago> and if it takes 5 minutes to discuss with a non-chess-playing candidate how a knight moves If it takes 5 minutes to explain how a knight moves I think that person might not be Google material...
- jeffbee 6y agoWe've already established that there are at least four different people in this thread alone who cannot clearly explain how a knight moves.
- bitcharmer 6y agoNo offence, but this might also mean you failed to understand it.