Restructured project from nested workspace pattern to flat single-repo layout. This eliminates redundant nesting and consolidates all project files under version control. ## Migration Summary **Before:** ``` alex/ (workspace, not versioned) ├── chess-game/ (git repo) │ ├── js/, css/, tests/ │ └── index.html └── docs/ (planning, not versioned) ``` **After:** ``` alex/ (git repo, everything versioned) ├── js/, css/, tests/ ├── index.html ├── docs/ (project documentation) ├── planning/ (historical planning docs) ├── .gitea/ (CI/CD) └── CLAUDE.md (configuration) ``` ## Changes Made ### Structure Consolidation - Moved all chess-game/ contents to root level - Removed redundant chess-game/ subdirectory - Flattened directory structure (eliminated one nesting level) ### Documentation Organization - Moved chess-game/docs/ → docs/ (project documentation) - Moved alex/docs/ → planning/ (historical planning documents) - Added CLAUDE.md (workspace configuration) - Added IMPLEMENTATION_PROMPT.md (original project prompt) ### Version Control Improvements - All project files now under version control - Planning documents preserved in planning/ folder - Merged .gitignore files (workspace + project) - Added .claude/ agent configurations ### File Updates - Updated .gitignore to include both workspace and project excludes - Moved README.md to root level - All import paths remain functional (relative paths unchanged) ## Benefits ✅ **Simpler Structure** - One level of nesting removed ✅ **Complete Versioning** - All documentation now in git ✅ **Standard Layout** - Matches open-source project conventions ✅ **Easier Navigation** - Direct access to all project files ✅ **CI/CD Compatible** - All workflows still functional ## Technical Validation - ✅ Node.js environment verified - ✅ Dependencies installed successfully - ✅ Dev server starts and responds - ✅ All core files present and accessible - ✅ Git repository functional ## Files Preserved **Implementation Files:** - js/ (3,517 lines of code) - css/ (4 stylesheets) - tests/ (87 test cases) - index.html - package.json **CI/CD Pipeline:** - .gitea/workflows/ci.yml - .gitea/workflows/release.yml **Documentation:** - docs/ (12+ documentation files) - planning/ (historical planning materials) - README.md **Configuration:** - jest.config.js, babel.config.cjs, playwright.config.js - .gitignore (merged) - CLAUDE.md 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
648 lines
18 KiB
Markdown
648 lines
18 KiB
Markdown
# Risk Assessment: HTML Chess Game
|
|
|
|
## Executive Summary
|
|
**Overall Risk Level**: MEDIUM-HIGH
|
|
**Critical Risks**: 3 | **High Risks**: 5 | **Medium Risks**: 8 | **Low Risks**: 6
|
|
**Recommended Mitigation Budget**: 15-20% of total project time
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 1. Technical Risks
|
|
|
|
### 1.1 CRITICAL: Chess Rules Compliance
|
|
**Probability**: 80% | **Impact**: CRITICAL | **Risk Score**: 9/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Implementing all chess rules correctly, including edge cases, is extremely challenging. Incomplete or incorrect rule implementation will result in an unplayable game.
|
|
|
|
**Specific Risks**:
|
|
- Castling validation (8+ conditions to check)
|
|
- En passant timing and validation
|
|
- Pinned pieces cannot move (requires simulation)
|
|
- Stalemate vs checkmate distinction
|
|
- Three-fold repetition detection
|
|
- 50-move draw rule
|
|
- Promotion handling
|
|
- Discovery check scenarios
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- Game produces illegal moves
|
|
- Users lose trust in application
|
|
- Negative reviews and abandonment
|
|
- Major refactoring required late in project
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Early Validation** (Priority: CRITICAL)
|
|
- Create comprehensive test suite FIRST (TDD)
|
|
- Test against known positions (Lichess puzzle database)
|
|
- Use existing chess libraries as reference (chess.js)
|
|
- Implement FEN import to test specific positions
|
|
|
|
2. **Expert Review** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Recruit chess player for testing
|
|
- Test with FIDE official rules document
|
|
- Use online validators for move legality
|
|
|
|
3. **Incremental Implementation** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Implement basic moves first, validate thoroughly
|
|
- Add special moves one at a time
|
|
- Test extensively before moving to next feature
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 12-15 hours (testing framework + validation)
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: 30-40 hours (debugging + refactoring)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 1.2 CRITICAL: Performance Degradation
|
|
**Probability**: 70% | **Impact**: HIGH | **Risk Score**: 8/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
AI move calculation using minimax algorithm can freeze the UI, especially at higher search depths. Poor performance will make the game unusable.
|
|
|
|
**Specific Risks**:
|
|
- Minimax at depth 6+ blocks UI (300ms-3s)
|
|
- Mobile devices have 3-5x slower computation
|
|
- Memory overflow with transposition tables
|
|
- Animation frame drops (< 60fps)
|
|
- Large DOM reflows on move updates
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- Unresponsive UI during AI thinking
|
|
- Poor user experience on mobile
|
|
- Browser tab crashes on older devices
|
|
- Negative performance reviews
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Web Workers** (Priority: CRITICAL)
|
|
- Move AI computation to separate thread
|
|
- Implement message passing protocol
|
|
- Allow cancellation of ongoing searches
|
|
- Budget: 6-8 hours
|
|
|
|
2. **Performance Budgets** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- AI response time < 500ms for beginner
|
|
- AI response time < 2s for advanced
|
|
- UI animations at 60fps minimum
|
|
- First render < 100ms
|
|
- Budget: 4-5 hours for monitoring
|
|
|
|
3. **Optimization Techniques** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Alpha-beta pruning (50-90% node reduction)
|
|
- Move ordering (captures first)
|
|
- Iterative deepening with time limits
|
|
- Transposition tables with size limits
|
|
- Budget: 8-10 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 18-23 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: Major architectural changes (40+ hours)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 1.3 CRITICAL: Browser Compatibility Issues
|
|
**Probability**: 60% | **Impact**: MEDIUM-HIGH | **Risk Score**: 7/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Different browsers handle events, rendering, and JavaScript differently. CSS inconsistencies and browser-specific bugs can break functionality.
|
|
|
|
**Specific Risks**:
|
|
- Safari drag-and-drop API differences
|
|
- Mobile touch event conflicts
|
|
- IE11/older Edge compatibility (if required)
|
|
- CSS Grid/Flexbox rendering differences
|
|
- Web Worker support variations
|
|
- LocalStorage quota differences
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- Game broken on 20-30% of browsers
|
|
- Inconsistent user experience
|
|
- Late discovery requires major changes
|
|
- Support burden increases
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Progressive Enhancement** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Core functionality works without modern features
|
|
- Click-to-select fallback for drag-drop
|
|
- Graceful degradation for Web Workers
|
|
- Budget: 5-6 hours
|
|
|
|
2. **Early Cross-Browser Testing** (Priority: CRITICAL)
|
|
- Test on Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge weekly
|
|
- Mobile testing on iOS and Android
|
|
- Use BrowserStack or similar service
|
|
- Budget: 8-10 hours (throughout project)
|
|
|
|
3. **Standard APIs Only** (Priority: MEDIUM)
|
|
- Avoid experimental features
|
|
- Use polyfills for older browsers
|
|
- Transpile with Babel if supporting IE11
|
|
- Budget: 3-4 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 16-20 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: 25-35 hours of fixes
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 2. Implementation Risks
|
|
|
|
### 2.1 HIGH: Scope Creep
|
|
**Probability**: 85% | **Impact**: MEDIUM | **Risk Score**: 7/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Chess has many potential features (online play, tournaments, analysis, etc.). Without strict scope control, project timeline will expand indefinitely.
|
|
|
|
**Common Scope Additions**:
|
|
- Online multiplayer
|
|
- User accounts and profiles
|
|
- ELO rating system
|
|
- Game analysis and suggestions
|
|
- Opening explorer
|
|
- Puzzle mode
|
|
- Tournament mode
|
|
- Social features
|
|
- Mobile app versions
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- Project never reaches completion
|
|
- MVP delayed by months
|
|
- Team burnout
|
|
- Budget overruns
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Strict MVP Definition** (Priority: CRITICAL)
|
|
- Document exact feature set
|
|
- "Must have" vs "Nice to have" list
|
|
- Freeze requirements after Phase 1
|
|
- Budget: 3-4 hours
|
|
|
|
2. **Phased Releases** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Release MVP first (4-6 weeks)
|
|
- Gather user feedback
|
|
- Prioritize Phase 2 features based on data
|
|
- Budget: Built into project management
|
|
|
|
3. **Feature Request Backlog** (Priority: MEDIUM)
|
|
- Log all ideas for future versions
|
|
- No immediate implementation
|
|
- Quarterly review of backlog
|
|
- Budget: 1-2 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 4-6 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: Indefinite timeline extension
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 2.2 HIGH: Insufficient Testing
|
|
**Probability**: 75% | **Impact**: MEDIUM-HIGH | **Risk Score**: 7/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Chess has millions of possible game states. Without systematic testing, critical bugs will reach production.
|
|
|
|
**Testing Gaps**:
|
|
- Edge case positions not tested
|
|
- AI makes illegal moves in rare scenarios
|
|
- UI state desynchronization
|
|
- Undo/redo corruption
|
|
- Memory leaks in long games
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- Production bugs discovered by users
|
|
- Reputation damage
|
|
- Time spent firefighting vs building
|
|
- Increased support costs
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Test-Driven Development** (Priority: CRITICAL)
|
|
- Write tests BEFORE implementation
|
|
- 90%+ code coverage target
|
|
- Test all edge cases
|
|
- Budget: 25-30 hours
|
|
|
|
2. **Automated Test Suite** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Unit tests for chess engine
|
|
- Integration tests for UI
|
|
- End-to-end game scenarios
|
|
- Performance regression tests
|
|
- Budget: 15-20 hours
|
|
|
|
3. **Manual QA Sessions** (Priority: MEDIUM)
|
|
- Play test every sprint
|
|
- User acceptance testing
|
|
- Exploratory testing for edge cases
|
|
- Budget: 8-10 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 48-60 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: Ongoing production issues (20+ hours/month)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 2.3 HIGH: Knowledge Gap in Chess Rules
|
|
**Probability**: 70% (if no chess expert) | **Impact**: HIGH | **Risk Score**: 7/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Developers without deep chess knowledge will misunderstand rules, leading to incorrect implementation.
|
|
|
|
**Common Misunderstandings**:
|
|
- Castling through check is illegal
|
|
- En passant only works immediately after pawn moves
|
|
- Pawn can promote to any piece (not just queen)
|
|
- Stalemate is a draw, not a loss
|
|
- King can castle after rook moves (NO - illegal)
|
|
- Pinned pieces can never move (NO - can move along pin line)
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- Incorrect game logic
|
|
- Multiple refactoring cycles
|
|
- Loss of credibility
|
|
- Frustration from chess players
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Chess Expert Involvement** (Priority: CRITICAL)
|
|
- Recruit chess player as consultant
|
|
- Review all rule implementations
|
|
- Test against known positions
|
|
- Budget: 10-12 hours
|
|
|
|
2. **Study Official Rules** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- FIDE Laws of Chess document
|
|
- Document edge cases in specifications
|
|
- Create test cases from rule book
|
|
- Budget: 8-10 hours
|
|
|
|
3. **Reference Implementation** (Priority: MEDIUM)
|
|
- Study chess.js source code
|
|
- Compare with Lichess/Chess.com behavior
|
|
- Use existing libraries as validation
|
|
- Budget: 5-6 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 23-28 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: 30-50 hours (reimplementation)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 2.4 HIGH: State Management Complexity
|
|
**Probability**: 65% | **Impact**: MEDIUM-HIGH | **Risk Score**: 6/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Managing game state (board, history, UI) becomes complex. Poor architecture leads to bugs and maintenance nightmares.
|
|
|
|
**State Complexity Sources**:
|
|
- Board state (64 squares)
|
|
- Move history (potentially 100+ moves)
|
|
- UI state (selected piece, highlights)
|
|
- Undo/redo stacks
|
|
- AI thinking state
|
|
- Game metadata (player names, time)
|
|
- Settings and preferences
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- State synchronization bugs
|
|
- Difficult to add features
|
|
- Undo/redo doesn't work correctly
|
|
- Memory leaks
|
|
- Hard to debug issues
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **State Management Library** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Consider Redux/Zustand for predictability
|
|
- Immutable state updates
|
|
- Single source of truth
|
|
- Budget: 8-10 hours (setup + learning)
|
|
|
|
2. **Clear Architecture** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Separate chess logic from UI
|
|
- Model-View-Controller pattern
|
|
- Pure functions for state updates
|
|
- Budget: 6-8 hours (design)
|
|
|
|
3. **State Validation** (Priority: MEDIUM)
|
|
- Validate state transitions
|
|
- Log state changes for debugging
|
|
- Implement state snapshots
|
|
- Budget: 4-5 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 18-23 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: Major refactoring (35+ hours)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 2.5 HIGH: AI Difficulty Balancing
|
|
**Probability**: 80% | **Impact**: MEDIUM | **Risk Score**: 6/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Creating AI that is both challenging and beatable is difficult. Too easy = boring, too hard = frustrating.
|
|
|
|
**Balancing Challenges**:
|
|
- Beginner AI makes random mistakes
|
|
- Intermediate AI has realistic playing strength
|
|
- Advanced AI is challenging but not unbeatable
|
|
- Difficulty progression feels smooth
|
|
- AI doesn't play "inhuman" moves
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- Poor user experience
|
|
- Complaints about difficulty
|
|
- Limited replayability
|
|
- Users abandon single-player mode
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Configurable Search Depth** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Beginner: 2-3 ply (~instant moves)
|
|
- Intermediate: 4-5 ply (~0.5s)
|
|
- Advanced: 6-7 ply (~2-3s)
|
|
- Budget: 3-4 hours
|
|
|
|
2. **Randomized Mistakes** (Priority: MEDIUM)
|
|
- Beginner: 30% chance of random move
|
|
- Intermediate: 10% chance of suboptimal move
|
|
- Advanced: Optimal play
|
|
- Budget: 4-5 hours
|
|
|
|
3. **User Testing** (Priority: CRITICAL)
|
|
- Test with players of varying skill
|
|
- Collect feedback on difficulty
|
|
- Iterate on evaluation function
|
|
- Budget: 8-10 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 15-19 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: Poor retention (no cost, but lost users)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 3. User Experience Risks
|
|
|
|
### 3.1 MEDIUM: Mobile Usability Issues
|
|
**Probability**: 70% | **Impact**: MEDIUM | **Risk Score**: 6/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Chess board on small screens is challenging. Touch interactions differ from mouse, and mobile performance is worse.
|
|
|
|
**Mobile Challenges**:
|
|
- Small touch targets (pieces ~40x40px)
|
|
- Drag-and-drop on mobile is clunky
|
|
- Portrait vs landscape orientation
|
|
- Keyboard covers board on iOS
|
|
- Performance on older Android devices
|
|
- Accidental moves from fat fingers
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- 40-50% of users on mobile
|
|
- Poor reviews on mobile
|
|
- High bounce rate
|
|
- Accessibility issues
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Responsive Design** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Mobile-first approach
|
|
- Touch targets min 44x44px
|
|
- Click-to-select on mobile (no drag)
|
|
- Budget: 8-10 hours
|
|
|
|
2. **Mobile Testing** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Test on real devices (iOS + Android)
|
|
- Portrait and landscape modes
|
|
- Different screen sizes
|
|
- Budget: 6-8 hours
|
|
|
|
3. **Progressive Enhancement** (Priority: MEDIUM)
|
|
- Desktop gets drag-and-drop
|
|
- Mobile gets tap-to-select
|
|
- Adaptive UI based on screen size
|
|
- Budget: 5-6 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 19-24 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: Mobile users leave (lost audience)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 3.2 MEDIUM: Confusing User Interface
|
|
**Probability**: 60% | **Impact**: MEDIUM | **Risk Score**: 5/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Non-intuitive UI leads to user confusion. Users don't understand how to interact with the game.
|
|
|
|
**UI Confusion Points**:
|
|
- How to select pieces
|
|
- How to see legal moves
|
|
- How to undo moves
|
|
- How to change difficulty
|
|
- What notation means
|
|
- How to resign or offer draw
|
|
|
|
**Impact if Not Mitigated**:
|
|
- High learning curve
|
|
- User frustration
|
|
- Support requests
|
|
- Negative reviews
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Visual Affordances** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Highlight legal moves on selection
|
|
- Show last move clearly
|
|
- Animate piece movements
|
|
- Visual feedback for all actions
|
|
- Budget: 8-10 hours
|
|
|
|
2. **User Onboarding** (Priority: MEDIUM)
|
|
- First-time tutorial
|
|
- Tooltips for controls
|
|
- Help documentation
|
|
- Budget: 5-6 hours
|
|
|
|
3. **User Testing** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Watch real users play
|
|
- Identify confusion points
|
|
- Iterate on UI
|
|
- Budget: 6-8 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 19-24 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: Poor UX (hard to quantify)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 3.3 MEDIUM: Lack of Feedback During AI Thinking
|
|
**Probability**: 75% | **Impact**: LOW-MEDIUM | **Risk Score**: 4/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
When AI is calculating, users don't know if game is frozen or thinking.
|
|
|
|
**User Frustration Points**:
|
|
- No indication AI is thinking
|
|
- Can't tell if game crashed
|
|
- Impatience during long calculations
|
|
- Unable to cancel AI thinking
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Visual Indicators** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- "AI is thinking..." message
|
|
- Animated spinner
|
|
- Progress bar (if using iterative deepening)
|
|
- Budget: 3-4 hours
|
|
|
|
2. **Cancel Button** (Priority: MEDIUM)
|
|
- Allow stopping AI search
|
|
- Make random move from current best
|
|
- Budget: 2-3 hours
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 5-7 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: User confusion (minor)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 4. Project Management Risks
|
|
|
|
### 4.1 MEDIUM: Timeline Underestimation
|
|
**Probability**: 80% | **Impact**: MEDIUM | **Risk Score**: 6/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
Chess projects often take 2-3x longer than estimated due to edge cases and complexity.
|
|
|
|
**Estimation Errors**:
|
|
- "Basic chess" sounds simple
|
|
- Edge cases take 40% of time
|
|
- Testing takes longer than coding
|
|
- AI tuning is iterative
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
1. **Add 30-50% Buffer** (Priority: CRITICAL)
|
|
- If estimated 80 hours, budget 120 hours
|
|
- Account for unknowns
|
|
- Budget: Built into planning
|
|
|
|
2. **Track Velocity** (Priority: HIGH)
|
|
- Measure actual vs estimated
|
|
- Adjust future estimates
|
|
- Budget: 2-3 hours/week
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: Time tracking overhead (3-5 hours)
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: Missed deadlines
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 4.2 LOW: Dependency on External Libraries
|
|
**Probability**: 30% | **Impact**: LOW | **Risk Score**: 2/10
|
|
|
|
**Description**:
|
|
If using libraries (chess.js, stockfish.js), changes or deprecation could impact project.
|
|
|
|
**Mitigation Strategies**:
|
|
- Lock dependency versions
|
|
- Regular security updates
|
|
- Have fallback plan
|
|
|
|
**Cost of Mitigation**: 2-3 hours
|
|
**Cost if Risk Occurs**: 10-20 hours (replacement)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 5. Risk Matrix Summary
|
|
|
|
### Critical Risks (Score 8-10):
|
|
1. Chess Rules Compliance (9/10) - Mitigation: 12-15 hours
|
|
2. Performance Degradation (8/10) - Mitigation: 18-23 hours
|
|
|
|
### High Risks (Score 6-7):
|
|
3. Browser Compatibility (7/10) - Mitigation: 16-20 hours
|
|
4. Scope Creep (7/10) - Mitigation: 4-6 hours
|
|
5. Insufficient Testing (7/10) - Mitigation: 48-60 hours
|
|
6. Knowledge Gap (7/10) - Mitigation: 23-28 hours
|
|
7. State Management (6/10) - Mitigation: 18-23 hours
|
|
8. AI Balancing (6/10) - Mitigation: 15-19 hours
|
|
|
|
### Medium Risks (Score 4-5):
|
|
9. Mobile Usability (6/10) - Mitigation: 19-24 hours
|
|
10. Confusing UI (5/10) - Mitigation: 19-24 hours
|
|
11. AI Feedback (4/10) - Mitigation: 5-7 hours
|
|
12. Timeline Estimation (6/10) - Mitigation: 5 hours
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 6. Risk Mitigation Budget
|
|
|
|
**Total Mitigation Effort**: 208-259 hours across all risks
|
|
|
|
**Priority Allocation**:
|
|
- CRITICAL risks: 46-58 hours (22%)
|
|
- HIGH risks: 124-156 hours (60%)
|
|
- MEDIUM risks: 38-45 hours (18%)
|
|
|
|
**Recommendation**: Allocate **15-20% of project time to risk mitigation** upfront to avoid 2-3x costs later.
|
|
|
|
For 80-120 hour project:
|
|
- **Risk budget: 12-24 hours**
|
|
- Focus on CRITICAL and HIGH risks
|
|
- Accept some MEDIUM/LOW risks
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 7. Early Warning Indicators
|
|
|
|
### Red Flags to Watch:
|
|
|
|
1. **Week 1**: No comprehensive test suite started
|
|
2. **Week 2**: Still unclear on castling rules
|
|
3. **Week 3**: No performance profiling done
|
|
4. **Week 4**: AI blocks UI for > 1 second
|
|
5. **Week 5**: No mobile testing conducted
|
|
6. **Any time**: Scope expanding beyond MVP
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 8. Contingency Plans
|
|
|
|
### If Critical Risks Materialize:
|
|
|
|
**Chess Rules Issues**:
|
|
- Fallback: Use chess.js library for validation
|
|
- Cost: 4-6 hours integration
|
|
- Trade-off: Less learning, dependency added
|
|
|
|
**Performance Problems**:
|
|
- Fallback: Limit AI to depth 4 maximum
|
|
- Cost: User experience degradation
|
|
- Alternative: Server-side AI (adds complexity)
|
|
|
|
**Browser Compatibility**:
|
|
- Fallback: Support only modern browsers
|
|
- Cost: Document requirements clearly
|
|
- Trade-off: Smaller audience
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 9. Risk Tracking Plan
|
|
|
|
### Weekly Risk Review:
|
|
1. Check velocity vs estimates
|
|
2. Run performance benchmarks
|
|
3. Review test coverage
|
|
4. Cross-browser testing
|
|
5. Update risk scores
|
|
|
|
### Monthly Risk Report:
|
|
- Risks that materialized
|
|
- Mitigation effectiveness
|
|
- New risks identified
|
|
- Lessons learned
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Conclusion
|
|
|
|
The HTML chess game has **medium-high overall risk**, primarily from:
|
|
1. Chess rules complexity (edge cases)
|
|
2. Performance requirements (AI calculation)
|
|
3. Testing thoroughness (millions of states)
|
|
|
|
**Key Success Factors**:
|
|
- Test-driven development from day 1
|
|
- Chess expert on team or as consultant
|
|
- Performance budgets enforced
|
|
- Strict scope control
|
|
- 20% time buffer for unknowns
|
|
|
|
**Highest ROI Risk Mitigations**:
|
|
1. Comprehensive test suite (prevents 90% of bugs)
|
|
2. Web Workers for AI (prevents major UX issue)
|
|
3. Chess expert review (prevents reimplementation)
|
|
|
|
With proper mitigation, risks are **manageable**, but **should not be underestimated**.
|