N@TM Group: Pawnsy
One project I saw at N@TM was Pawnsy, a fascinating take on an online chess platform similar to Chess.com. They impressively integrated Stockfish into their website, allowing for challenging AI gameplay. Additionally, they featured leaderboards and game replays, enhancing the competitive and analytical aspects of the game.
I suggested adding more customization options for chess pieces and boards to give players a more personalized experience. Another key recommendation was implementing real-time matches against other players, rather than just bots, to make the platform feel more dynamic and engaging.
Overall, Pawnsy stood out as an ambitious and well-executed project.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
One of my main strengths is problem-solving. When debugging my code, I usually have a general idea of what to look for and systematically test potential issues using the console. If needed, I also use Postman to troubleshoot API requests and ensure my code functions correctly.
Weaknesses
One major weakness is that I sometimes struggle with understanding my own code, especially in the numerous functions within my frontend. This happens due to a lack of comments, making it difficult to navigate my logic when I encounter roadblocks.
How I Can Improve
- Develop the habit of writing comments to briefly explain what each function does.
- Add comments within complex functions to clarify specific parts of the logic.
- Avoid relying solely on function names, as they may not always provide enough context.
Self Grade
| Category | Max Points | Self Grade | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 Things Done Over 12 Weeks | 5 | 5.0 | I completed all tasks, including issue tracking, burndown updates, and presentations with full consistency. |
| Full Stack Project Demo & Feedback | 2 | 1.9 | The demo covered all CPT requirements, and I incorporated N@tM feedback well, but I could refine my presentation skills. |
| Project Feature Blog (CPT/FRQ Language) | 1 | 0.9 | My blog explains the project clearly with CPT-aligned language, but a bit more depth in FRQ formatting could improve it. |
| MCQ Performance | 1 | 0.8 | I performed well on MCQs, but I need to improve my focus and avoid careless mistakes. |
| Retrospective & Reflection | 0.5 | 0.2 | I provided a basic reflection on my own strengths and weaknesses but need to add more depth in analyzing my progress and future steps. |
| Self-Grade Justification | 0.5 | 0.5 | I fairly assessed my work with detailed reasoning, but I can refine my explanation further. |
| Overall Score | 10 | 9.1 | I covered all required aspects but have areas for refinement in presentation, reflection, and justification. |