Jump to content

Talk:Mechanical Turk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Game scores

We should probably add some of The Turk's game scores in—I'll do it tomorrow when I'm less tired unless someone else leaps in. Most famous is his defeat of Napoleon I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.75 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2004 (UTC)

We are waiting for the notation of his play with Napoleon...

[We are waiting for the notation of his play with Napoleon..] Just added.

Any idea why it is called The Turk?

Because the mannequin was dressed in the garb of a Turk. --Flex 22:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Months ago I herd on Paul Harvey that Napoleon actually guessed that it was a hoax by angering the hidden chess master with frequent invalid moves. Any body have a source that would confirm/deny this?

Napolean game

I think that raw game notation should be kept at wikisource and only notation which is explained should reamain in wikipedia. I'm considering moving the moves of the game there since it seems more appropriate. BrokenSegue 03:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Size discrepancy

In the introduction, the article states that the Mechanical Turk could contain a midget. However, in the section on myths at the end, it states that it could hold a full-sized man... --David.given 14:32, 04 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems hard to imagine a contraption that could hold a full size man and yet not be able to hold a midge. DoorFrame 20:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Known as Farkas

Well, I removed the section which said he was not known as Farkas. In his earlier years, when he lived in Hungary, he was known as Farkas. That's not 'nationalist speech', that's the Hungarian for Wolfgang. Simple as that. Source: http://www.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/cache/damjanich_hu.htm in Hungarian. There must be a Slovakian version of his name as well, I guess it's Ján Vlk Kempelen. Caius 12:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Date?

The Turk was unvailed in 1770 and not 1769 no? Kempelen challenged he could do better at a magic show of the court of the Empress of Austria-Hungary in the Autumn of 1769. CassiusBilbao 22:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Game against Napoleon

An anonymous user at pl: said, that all three known Napoleon games are hoax. Anyone can check that? A.J. 09:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

This article has passed the GA noms, here are some suggestions for further improvements.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 feet, use 5 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 feet.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: ization (A) (British: isation), traveled (A) (British: travelled), grey (B) (American: gray), kerb (B) (American: curb), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

Hope this helps. Tarret 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Inline comments

Here's what I'm trying to say with the questioned section regarding Napoleon - I've stared at it for weeks not knowing what to do with it. Napoleon was at a table with a chess board. The Turk was in another area of the room. Napoleon was not allowed to cross a roped-off line to go to the Turk's board, Malzel instead making the moves on the Turk's board. I'm not sure how to make that clear in the prose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this is better? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I like it! Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, yes, silly me about the smoke. My book is at my desk at home, I'll get that in there tonight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

More inline comments

The current inlines are removed and fixed. I do not know how to fix it, but it appears one of the changes was saying that the letters and book excerpts (Dutens, Thicknesse) were changed to "quoted." The Levitt text doesn't quote them, but provides the full text and I think the sources should probably reflect that. I don't nkow how to word it, but yeah. Otherwise, more thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "quoted" was my mistake. "Reproduced"? But "reprinted" is OK too.
More comments later. Let's not rush this. (Frankly, I'd prefer to rush this, or anyway to put this near the top of my todo list. But my employer has other ideas.) -- Hoary 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reproduced works great. I'm also in no rush for at least the next 10 days, so take your time because I'll be taking mine. d:-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spurious erudition, spurious precision

After editing:

which measured about 3.5 [[Foot (unit of length)|feet]] long (106 [[centimeters]]), 2 feet wide (61 centimeters), and 2.5 feet high (76 centimeters). Placed on the top of the cabinet was a chess board, which measured 1.5 feet square (46 centimeters).<ref name=Anomalies/><ref name=OnlineConversion>[[U.S. customary units]] were used as the basis of measurements in ''Jay's Journal''. Conversion was done using the tool located at [http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm OnlineConversion.com].</ref>

(Before editing, these measurements were to the nearest millimetre.)

Uh, hold on a moment. To me, this looks absolutely batty. First, I'd never heard of the phrase "U.S. customary units" and thought it might mean some old and obsolete definition of feet, etc. (I mean, even more obsolete than feet in general). I took the link. No, feet in "U.S. customary units" are just plain feet, as widely used in the strangely timid anglophone nations to this very day. ("A decimal system?! Saints alive, no!") So "U.S. customary units" is a particularly pointless link. ¶ Now let's look at the measurements. Curiously, every single one is a multiple of 0.5 foot. This means that they can't be more precise than 0.1 foot (and it looks very likely that they're not more precise than 0.5 foot). One foot is 304.8 mm; thus 0.1 foot is 30.48 mm (and 0.5 foot is 152.4 mm). Forget millimetres: even centimetres convey an entirely spurious precision. (Better to use decimetres.) ¶ Further, "conversion was done using the tool located" blah blah -- jeez, we're talking here about extremely simple arithmetic using a universally accepted factor of 30.48; even a 1970s pocket calculator can do that. (For that matter, even a sober person with a pencil and paper or an abacus can do it.) ¶ Real precision, not bogus precision; real scholarship, not pointless name dropping. Please. -- Hoary 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I probably haven't messed with metric conversions since grade school, and figured I would do it that way. If my math is wrong, please correct this. Meanwhile, the US customary units was where I ended up after disambigs, which is why I linked it. I have no problem with that being changed, I thought I did the right thing here. Check the peer review above - the idea to go to that site was not my own, and I trust him. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose that this online tool is any worse at multiplying by 30.48 than your computer is. A Mouse just suggested it; he didn't suggest that you cite it. Unlike articles about Pokemon (etc etc etc), the article about the Turk is for adults. Adults know what feet and centimetres are. This stuff doesn't have to be linked. And the math is not wrong; it's just silly; think about it, BDJ! The best solution is to use some source that doesn't measure by the half foot; in the meantime, I'll remove the links. -- Hoary 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Jay's Journal is the only one that provided measurements that I found - or at least trust. If I'm overlinking, I'd rather scale it back than have to find things to link later, honestly, and as for the math - I thought I was using my head. I trust your judgement on things like this more than I trust my own, that's why I look for your help. So thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Let's look at some books

Windisch's book

An engraving of the Turk from Karl Gottlieb von Windisch's 1784 book Inanimate Reason; or, A Circumstantial Account of that Astonishing Piece of Mechanism, M. de Kempelen's Chess-Player, Now Exhibiting at No. 9 Savile-Row, Burlington Gardens.
Karl Gottlieb von Windisch writing in his 1784 book, Inanimate Reason; or, A Circumstantial Account of that Astonishing Piece of Mechanism, M. de Kempelen's Chess-Player, Now Exhibiting at No. 9 Savile-Row, Burlington Gardens
Karl Gottlieb von Windisch, Briefe über den Schachspieler von Kempelen nebst drey Kupferstichen die diese berühmte Maschine vorstellen, or Inanimate Reason; or, A Circumstantial Account of that Astonishing Piece of Mechanism, M. de Kempelen's Chess-Player, Now Exhibiting at No. 9 Savile-Row, Burlington Gardens (London, 1784)

I'm mystified. Did a translator later provide the English prose for the London edition of KGW's German-language book?

To give the laborious subtitle of the English work three times seems twice too many. Somewhere, give the full title; elsewhere, just the main title (Inanimate Reason). -- Hoary 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Will fix. I didn't realize I did it so many times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hindenburg's record

Carl Friedrich Hindenburg, a university mathematician, kept a record of the conversations during the Turk's time in Leipzig and published it as About the Chessplayer of Mr. von Kempelen and an Imitation of It in 1789. Questions asked and answered by the Turk included its age, marital status, and questions about the machine's secrets.

Did this German-sounding person really provide an English title? If the title was in German, give it in German. -- Hoary 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Found the German translation, will add. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Erm, German original, I think you mean. (NB this article is too good to be edited when sleepy!) -- Hoary 15:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Racknitz's book

Joseph Friedrich Freiherr von Racknitz viewed the Turk and published his findings in Ueber den Schachspieler des Herrn von Kempelen, nebst einer Abbildung und Beschreibung seiner Sprachmachine,

The title might be helpfully glossed in English somewhere. -- Hoary 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

good catch, this will be adjusted, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hunneman's book

W. J. Hunneman chronicling the matches played with this handicap.
W. J. Hunneman, Chess. A Selection of Fifty Games, from Those Played by the Automaton Chess-Player, During Its Exhibition in London, in 1820. 1820

Was this title in English? -- Hoary 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was in England. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Phew, fast work there Sir!

I hope to come back tomorrow with more of the comments you love to hate. -- Hoary 15:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dingy image

The image of the handbill looks too dingy to me; is Image:Malzels-exhibition-ad3.jpeg better or is it too gaudy? -- Hoary 15:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think yours looks closer to what it was intended to look like. I'll upload it to commons if you agree it's better than what's there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes of course, feel very free to do what you like with it. -- Hoary 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Replaced, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Inline Comments 3: Inline Harder

I'll address these tomorrow evening, I do have a question on a couple of them. Also, any other comments, adding them like that is perfect - when you were doing it w/Kroger, you were breaking the paragraphs up, this keeps the paragraph structure easier to read in the diffs. So I don't hate them anymore. d;-D --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay:

  1. I don't know what "hex" is, so do what you feel is best.
  2. The apparent Europe confusion - all I know is that he promised to pay back the 30k Francs and not leave the continent. I assume this means Europe - he'd have no reason to bring it anywhere else but America, and he did break that promise relatively quickly. So I trust your judgement on the wording - I agree that it's awkward, but I'm not sure if the replacement you have inline is the answer either. Did you mean London being outside the continent?
  3. The "woman" was simply unnamed in the text. I've changed that to unnamed to reflect that, thinking unidentified was a bit...much.
  4. Since I'm listing the books at the bottom, should I not list their full names in the refs at all?

Whee. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hex, ha ha. Right then, our dimensions are three and a half by two and a half by two feet. That's seven by five by four multiples of 15 centimetres. We'll round up 15 to 16 (only a very minor inaccuracy); we now have seven by five by four multiples of 16, and therefore (using the convention of "H" for hexadecimal), "7H×5H×4H centimetres". But no, somehow I don't think that this would go down well.
Since I'm listing the books at the bottom, should I not list their full names in the refs at all? By "refs" I think you mean what I call (foot)notes. No, I personally don't think there's any need to do this. However, I have very reluctantly gone against my (impeccable ha ha) judgment, having been forced to do so earlier during this. You'll see that I there wrote: Yes, given even a weak reason, I'll certainly make the changes, and with good grace. I really wish I hadn't promised "good grace", because I think it's a @&$#ing stupid "improvement" to both that article and to this one (and when you give me that beer you promised me when we eventually meet up in Mass., I'll tell you why).
More comments a bit later. -- Hoary 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. You'll have to do the hex thing, because now you've got me confused a bit more, haha. I'm math dumb. I also won't touch the refs/notes any further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
They're OK.
On Europe: Did you mean London being outside the continent? Yes. This sentence uses "whilst", a Briticism. Unless the context suggests something else, in talk among Brits about Europe in general, or about France or Germany, "the continent" means the European continent: however far east this continent may extend, westward it does not include Britain (an island distinctly smaller than Australia and thus neither a continent nor part of one). I think this usage of the word has nothing to do with British anglocentrism or europhobia: even Brits who'd happily say that Britain was part of Europe would insist that it wasn't part of "the continent". (Of course these people would happily answer "Europe" when asked which continent Britain was in, but that's a slightly different matter.) However, the article is citing a book published in the US, so I'm not sure. Can I interest you in rereading the relevant part of Levitt's book?
I did, and it only said the continent, Levitt's words. Because he only felt the need to note the deal he made after Malzel left for the States, I'm lead to believe that the continent included Europe. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Erm, the question is of whether "the continent" included Britain. -- Hoary 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe, given the sources and the source material he's grabbing the opinion from, that Britain was included. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Got it. (My earlier explanation was poor. There's a partial analogy here -- only partial, thanks to Canada, Mexico, etc. etc. -- between the ambiguity of "the continent" in British English and the distinction between north America [a continent] and "the continental United States". I'm even less conversant with Canadian idiom but I wouldn't be surprised if people in Newfoundland both saw themselves as within the north American continent and referred to points west, in contradistinction to themselves, as "the continent".) -- Hoary 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The woman: Mälzel's problems was finding a proper director for the machine, having trained an unknown woman in France before coming to the United States. Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but I still don't get the point here. Why didn't he just take this unknown woman with him? (If it had said for example "having trained a single woman, whose husband refused to allow her to go to America with him" [NB completely fictional!], then I'd understand.)
Your guess is as good as mine. Sorry. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But take heart, BDJ. 'Cause I feel I'm getting close to the point where I'll exclaim "Oh, fac it!" -- Hoary 09:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, fac you. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Aw fac it, I'm too sleepy to continue tonight. -- Hoary 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-wroding of the intro

Someone recently re-worded the intro, and suggested that The Turk was "a 'living doll' according to others." There was no indication of what "others", nor a citation. I've removed this, but if I'm missing something (I'm only vaguely aware of The Turk), please re-visit the wording and consider citing it. Thanks. -Harmil 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Great article

That's a great article on the "Turk". I have read much about the subject before, but this is one of the best presentations on the alleged automaton. Can't wait to see it in the Main Page in a few hours. :) RashBold (talk · contribs) 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, it is quite interesting. It kind of makes me worry as to what our *ahem* less than helpful editors will put it through. I already have this on my watchlist for when midnight (UTC) rolls around. Maybe I'm opening a can of WP:BEANS here by saying that, but it happens to every Article of the Day, so saying it can't change much. --LuigiManiac 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant, brilliant article...everything an FA should be. Paul 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Paul, good point. I concur. Paul Haymon 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the best FAs I've ever read! A gold star to the editors of The Turk! —XSG 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fantastic FA. Such a huge turnaround from Mandy Moore... Timocrates 13:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

title translation

"Ueber den Schachspieler des Herrn von Kempelen, nebst einer Abbildung und Beschreibung seiner Sprachmachine" translated would be (as i see it) "On the Chess Player of Mr. von Kempelen, along with an Illustration and Description of its Speaking Mechanism (or Speech Apparatus or some other combo)." all the other foreign language book titles have translations so perhaps this one was overlooked or maybe those are the official english translation titles. anyway thought that might be helpful. very interesting article Jieagles 05:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

These edits are probably vandalism but I don't have the references to refer to to check [1] Nil Einne 05:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Stupid people?

How could people fall for this without checking what's inside the "magical" box?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.225.78.183 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

If you read (not skimread) the article, you'll see this discussed. -- Hoary 10:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Who was the Operator

Do we have any information about who the person/persons inside the machine were? Graemec2 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read (not skimread) the article, you'll see this discussed. -- Hoary 10:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Schlumberger is only mentioned in passing, while William Lewis, Jacques-Francis Mouret, and Boncourt are absent entirely. I was sure they were mentioned by Levitt. I'd say the comment about skimreading is therefore a bit flippant.
Yeah, only Schlumberger is mentioned, with scarce details even in his own biographic article (no birthdates, circum which date he operated it, was he one of the last directors, then who were the firsts, etc.?). Since the machine is treated as a hoax, debting all of the "most victories" to the human directors, I think it is awful to find the article lacks information about such chessmasters... Even their motivations... why is it better to be hidden inside a machine than being famous as a great chess players? --dalegrett 14:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to add them in - if I didn't, it's because the information was either scant, nonexistant, or didn't really fit in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd also say there's a lot of redlinks in the second half of the article, and the picture layout, especially in the first few sections, is a bit iffy on some resolutions I've looked at. It's a good article, but I'm surprised it waltzed through its FA nom so easily with these issues unresolved. --DeLarge 11:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, no one really complained. I tried it on 4 resolutions without any problems in two browsers, any help is great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to find the "directors" in the article, but I couldn't find them, skimreading or not skimreading. Considering the importance of the director himself (seeing that if he/she was a poor chessplayer, the machine would have definitely been less impressive), it may be interesting to write a specific section about the directors, or at least give them a prominent, easy to find listing. KryzMasta 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the information about the directors is rather scant. No one knows who ran the machine under Kempelen, and we know little about who ran the machine under Malzel. We do know that the Chess Club that eventually purchased the Turk from Ohl had their members run the machine during the occasional displays, but when I wrote it, it didn't seem that important. If you have information I'm missing, please add it and source it, any improvements will be more than welcomed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting this to Article of the Day!

Just thought I'd drop by and say congrats! I know a lot of hard work went into this. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 12:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that. This is one of the most interesting articles I've seen in quite some time. Kafziel Talk 23:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed in Tour Of Europe?

There's a somewhat ambiguous pair of sentences there, specifically:

Moving to the Café de la Régence, the machine played many of the most skilled players, often losing, until securing a match with Philidor at the Académie des Sciences. While Philidor won his match with the Turk, Philidor's son noted that his father called it "his most fatiguing game of chess ever!"

The "often losing" seems unclear. I would've assumed that it meant the machine was often losing to the skilled players. However, the next sentence being "While Philidor won his match..." seems to imply that the previous sentence meant tha tthe "most skilled players" were often losing. Does anyone know which is correct? If so, can a clarification be made? --King V 17:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "Often losing" is cited to the text at the following footnote, and I vouch for its accuracy. The Cafe was home to a number of skilled players, so for the Turk to have lost often is not at all outside the realm of possibility. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So how did it work exactly?

I have read the entire article and yet I don't know how exactly it worked. It looks like they had a copy of the chess board with all the pieces inside the box, but how did he make the robot man pick up them and move them around? This is high-precision stuff. I would like to see a video clip or animation.

At the very least, please explain this to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.225.78.183 (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Apparently, you didn't read it well. The way the Turk's arms were moved is clearly stated: "The interior also contained a pegboard chess board connected to a pantograph-style series of levers that controlled the model's left arm. The metal pointer on the pantograph moved over the interior chessboard, and would simultaneously move the arm of the Turk over the chessboard on the cabinet. The range of motion allowed the director to move the Turk's arm up and down, and turning the lever would open and close the Turk's hand, allowing it to grasp the pieces on the board." 128.227.51.17 20:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I guess. I still don't understand how that was possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.225.78.183 (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Exactly! I, as a once trained mechanical engineer, always interested in the ACTUAL MECHANISM of the "Turk", was unable to get even the slightest hint from my professors about the solution. So, it seems to me, they (ancient engineers) had not been as primitive as we imagine, and we are not as clever as we think ourselves are!Tamaslevy 15:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the model black?

Great article. But there is one issue that I can not understand. Why is the reconstructed model black? Turks are not black people. The model has facial features of Turks. But the color is like a Brazilian, Arab or an extremely sunburn Turk. I am a Turk and I am as white as milk. Sincerely, ~Tengriteg 07:13, April 9 2007 (UTC)

If your complexion is as white as milk, you probably have albinism. This of course exists among Turks as it does among other nationalities, and a Turk with albinism is just as Turkish as a Turk without; but the stereotypical Turk was not and is not an albino, and this would have been a stereotypical rather than an actual Turk. -- Hoary 08:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Friend, thank you for your explanation. :-) I do not have albinism. Maybe my explanation was faulty. Just ignore my last sentence. I just wanted to mention that there is great prejudice. Sincerely, ~Tengriteg 15:30, April 12 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the reconstructed model had anything to do with prejudice. My assumption is that Geoghan worked off of a specific template when creating it, and it was created with authenticity in mind, and Kempelen may have gone for a stereotypical look. This is all speculation, however, I'm sure Geoghan wasn't in the market to offend. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, Tengriteg, keep in mind that it was designed 237 years ago. The Ottoman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were not the best of friends, so the Turk could have been a lot more of a caricature than it was. Considering the level of craftsmanship and detail, the subject was treated very respectfully. Precise skin tone is pretty minor. Kafziel Talk 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Kaifzel, I have no problem with the original one. As a mechanical engineer/scientist I appericate the work. And also I think we cannot judge the past using contemporary norms. By the way, the original model was not black. But in the era of information, the reconstructed model is worth mentioning. Also for any human, being black is not a problem. Every skin color is equal. I would also do the same objection if anyone built a model of a native African looking like a Scandinavian. But being a scientist forces me to talk about facts. Thank you for your help. Regards. ~Tengriteg 10:00, April 14 2007 (UTC)

Charles Godefroy de La Tour d'Auvergne

In the article it is mentioned that "A stop at Versailles preceded an exhibition in Paris, where the Turk lost a match to Charles Godefroy de La Tour d'Auvergne, the Duc de Bouillon"

As another article mentions that "Charles Godefroy de La Tour d'Auvergne (1706-1771)" thus making it impossible as he died a few years before the match.

I just wrote to Keitei about the Revision as of 22:19, 15 January 2007 where he contributed this piece of information and asked him about the source.

So - we need to correct at least one of the two articles.

--YoavD (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deep Blue

Is it notable that The Turk was used to represent the computer Deep Blue in the documentary Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine? Serendipodous 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup February 2008

01-March-2008: I have revised the article for several issues that I noticed, primarily about the size, name, and the date the hoax was revealed:

  • size: the dimensions of the chessboard in cm (from 7Apr07) are too high: 50cm = 19.7in (@2.54cm/inch) not "18 inches square" (45cm is closer); perhaps the box was widened in later decades, but I will keep the 110x60x75cm as 3.6/2.0/2.5 feet to match the first diagram, treating the floor as 9-inch tiles (4x9=36); other sources claim 4-foot length, and perhaps the box was expanded later.
  • name: also "Automaton Chess Player" from 1819 ad poster, as the name used for over 50 years (from German "Schachspieler");
  • date hoax revealed: using the article in Chess Monthly for the date as January 1857.

The major point is that the hoax was not fully revealed for nearly 87 years, to describe when the news was formally released. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Description of the cabinet

There is the following line written in the text: "The front of the cabinet consisted of three doors, an opening, and a drawer". However, I cannot see any "opening" on the pictures of the machine. What sort of opening was it? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also written that the chessboard was 18 sq. inches (116 sq. cm), which seems too little, and does not correspond with the picture where the chessboard covers more than half of the top of the cabinet. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The top image used to say that the images were not drawn to scale and were not possible given the reality. I would assume that we may be expecting too much from obviously imperfect illustrations, and should refer to the sources. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I have the solution now. It would be quite difficult to play on 18 sq. in board. However, I have just found out that originally there was written "one and half sq feet" (see here) which somebody later rewrote as 18 sq. inches, not making any difference between the foot-inch and sq foot-sq inch relations. I am not very good in imperial units, but 1 1/2 sq. feet should be 216 sq. inches. However, if the source uses "feet" as the unit, I believe it should be kept in the article. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
From The_Turk#Construction 3.5 feet is the length of the top(110cm is an imprecise rounded figure, see note 6) while the wide given (again rounded) as 60cm. That would make sense with a board 45.7cm sq. on the top. Given it was build when cm didn't exist the precise measurement is likely to be Inches. I.e Top of 42" x 24" (3.5 feet x 2 feet) with a board that was 18"x 18" (1.5 feet x 1.5 feet). Those measurement appear to nicely match the pictures. ChessCreator (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Standard chess board used today are still 18" sq. ChessCreator (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that you mistakenly presume that 18"x 18" = 18 sq inches (sic) and that 1.5 feet x 1.5 feet = 1.5 sq feet (sic), none of which is true. I have not studied mathematics and I have all my life used just metric units, but logically 18in x 18in = 324 sq in (18 sq. in = 3 in x 6 in) and 1.5 sq. feet = 1 foot x 1.5 feet. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you presume I've mistaken. Agreed that 18in x 18in = 324 sq in as you gave. ChessCreator (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think you mean that the board said "18 sq. inches" when in fact it's "18 inches squared."? IS that want your getting at? In which case the article is correct now as it says "Placed on the top of the cabinet was a chessboard, which measured eighteen inches square" 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the clarification. My bad English caused that I misunderstood the numbers. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: the footnote says that the dimensions are "from Jay's Journal, which expresses them to the nearest half-foot". Therefore I think that the dimension in the article should be "1.5 feet", as it used to be before somebody transcribed it into inches. The current version gives the feeling that we know the size of the chessboard more precisely than we do. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Feet or Inches seems fine. As you say Jay's Journal give measurement in feet, so using feet does make sense.
I do find it strange for a document that is a 'featured article' to be rounding when giving the figures in cm's however. Note 6 "Metric versions thus can only be precise to the nearest multiple of fifteen centimetres. If we conventionally round to the closest multiple of five centimetres, the cabinet was very roughly 110×60×75 cm and the chessboard very roughly 50 cm square." seems to be a WP:POV statement to me. ChessCreator (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears the decision was made after a peer review or something, this discussion adding some insight. I do not see any POV situations with an explanation of measurements for accuracy, but that may be my point of view talking. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that insight. At the time of the last review the article the main text didn't contain any conversions to cm except in the Jay's Journal note.
The part which is POV to me is "Metric versions thus can only be precise to the nearest multiple of fifteen centimetres". I get see where that is coming from, it's assuming an imprecision which is a POV and which I don't agree(my POV). If in school maths question you where told a cabinet is 3.5 feet long, how many centimeters is that? And then you gave the answer 110cm it would simply be marked wrong. ChessCreator (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't want to add this myself lest I be accused of self-promotion, but I did think a mention of it on the Talk page would at least be relevant:

I've started a webcomic about The Turk. It's a dramatization, and mostly-true; I tried to keep as close to historical fact as possible. It updates every Thursday, and you can see it here: http://www.clockworkgame.com.

Thanks!

Jane Irwin www.vogelein.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.104.17 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Very nice Jane. I like it and will add the site. SunCreator (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference 19

It says: Standage, 24–17. What does this really mean 17-24?, 24-27?, 14-17? I was just wondering... Lab-oratory (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would go for 24-27, but that is just an uneducated guess. Best would be to find someone with the book. SyG (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ref 44 is also like this. I should propably ask the guy who made this article. Lab-oratory (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Turk in Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles

The third episode of Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles is titled "The Turk" and involves someone attempting to create an automaton called The Turk that plays chess better than Deep Blue. Should there be a mention of this in the article? 75.68.246.87 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; there is already a mention of that in the section The Turk#Novels. SyG (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of revelation

User:Mvir has changed the date of revelation of the hoax from 1857 to "the early 1820's", citing the sources:

  • SCHAFFER, Simon (1999), "Enlightened Automata", in CLARK et. al. (Eds), The Sciences in Enlightened Europe, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 126-165.
  • Robert Willis, An Attempt to Analyse the Automaton Chess Player, London, 1821.

As this would be a crucial change in the article, could someone please get the mentioned sources and check the claim ? SyG (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Chess players

The article should have a section listing which chess players are supposed to have been "The Turk". This information is scattered through the article, and hard to find. Albmont (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote

I don't understand why amazon had got listed here, it looks like commercial promotion. 'The Turk' could just as well refer to 'The Turk' in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Anyway it's all cover in Turk so the following appears suitable.

This page is about the chess-playing automaton. For other uses, see Turk.

SunCreator (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I placed it in the hatnote. I did it because Mechanical Turk redirects to this article and Mechanical Turk is probably the first place people would be looking for the article about the Amazon.com company Amazon Mechanical Turk. I therefore think either Mechanical Turk has to get disambiguated to mention Amazon Mechanical Turk or Amazon Mechanical Turk has to get mentioned in the hatnote in this article. With just two subjects to be disambiguated between, I thought it would be best stick it in the hatnote of this article. Alternatively, Mechanical Turk could redirect to Amazon Mechanical Turk and then that article could have a hatnote leading to this article, because I don't know how commonly The Turk is referred to as The Mechanical Turk.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. There has been since 2008 a Mechanical Turk (disambiguation) page. I have re-direct Mechanical Turk to it as suggested above. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative text

This page currently is without the alternative text required of FA candidates. Use of this tool, could be useful. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's no longer required, actually. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC).
Correct. My message was overtaken by events that removed WP:ALT from FA for the present time. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the text to 16 historical articles on the Turk (as well as some concerning other Automatons) here: http://blog.chess.com/batgirl/chess-automatons-by-sarah-beth . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batgirl (talk • contribs) 13:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

About Poe's essay.

This part in the article is incorrect : "though many of Poe's hypotheses were incorrect (such as that a chess-playing machine must always win, and the Turk sometimes lost)"

In Poe's essay he uses the fact that The Turk loses sometimes as proof that it is not a pure machine, and in this respect he is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.136.3 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that follows. Since a machine can lose, this doesn't imply anything. His reasoning was faulty even if the conclusion was correct. Quale (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That is up for debate, but I think it would be more prudent to include something that Poe actually got incorrect (as the passage states). An example of this would be that he thought the operator would view the chess board through the torso of the Turk figure, when in fact the operator could not see the board at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.136.3 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do either of you have the Levitt book? At any rate, if the earlier part of the text is in Levitt's book, don't remove the reference. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't, but the point is that "The Turk sometimes lost, therefore it can't be a pure machine" is an example of a faulty argument. The premise (or hypothesis) that a machine can never lose is incorrect. I don't see how that's debatable. I removed the "and the Turk sometimes lost" bit as it isn't relevant to giving an example of an incorrect hypothesis. Quale (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
That is the way I interpret it too. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked up the specific passage in MAELZEL'S CHESS-PLAYER, which is:
3. The Automaton does not invariably win the game. Were the machine a pure machine this would not be the case — it would always win. The principle being discovered by which a machine can be made to play a game of chess, an extension of the same principle would enable it to win a game — a farther extension would enable it to win all games — that is, to beat any possible game of an antagonist. A little consideration will convince any one that the difficulty of making a machine beat all games, is not in the least degree greater, as regards the principle of the operations necessary, than that of making it beat a single game.
Poe was a smart guy, but that just doesn't make any sense. Quale (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Even about 30 years ago my father thought that a computer would necessarily always beat a human. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The idea of the infallible machine was of course dramatized in 2001! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that this is really relevant to the article itself, but to clarify why someone might think the machine would invariably win is because the (faulty) assumption was that the reason the computer was winning is because it had all possible moves and countermoves preprogrammed. Even Deep Blue doesn't have all moves preprogrammed, as the total number of possibilities is astronomically large. However, even if this were somehow the case, then the statement almost stands such as in tic-tac-toe. If you know the process, you will either win or tie all the time, but never lose. (not a Wikipedia user)

Revealing the secrets section

"In 1827 the Journal of the Franklin Institute did bring one of this often reprinted articles.". What is this sentence meant to say? It doesn't make sense to me. 83.183.116.114 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

John Gaughan demonstrated his version of the Turk on History Channel's: Lost Magic Decoded on October 18, 2012, hosted by Steve Cohen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.147.5 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Exposed in 1820s?

The current top paragraph says "it was exposed in the early 1820s as an elaborate hoax" but not who exposed it or what constitutes exposure. Poe at least wrote his analysis of the Turk in 1836(?), which would seem to imply that the issue was still regarded as open to some extent. Everything under "Revealing the secrets" is dated to the 1850s and later, so if there was any important exposure event in the 1820s it's not being listed in the article. Eliezer Yudkowsky, 50.240.196.110 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The sentence in the opening paragraph has a citation to "See SCHAFFER, Simon (1999), "Enlightened Automata", in Clark et al. (Eds), The Sciences in Enlightened Europe, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 126-165." I'd hope for somebody to look this up and either (a) add an 1820s event to "Revealing the Secrets", or (b) write here that there was no such event listed and then change the opening sentence to "it was eventually revealed as an elaborate hoax" or (c) choose a different dated event to use as the watershed moment for it being revealed as a hoax, and edit the opening paragraph with a reference. (I'm not an expert in this field, I'm just writing something about computer chess and using Poe's essay as an example of how chess wasn't always known to be computable.) Eliezer Yudkowsky, 50.240.196.110 (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A guttengurg ebook on mechanical turk

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/60420/60420-h/60420-h.htm

Observations on the Automaton Chess Player Now Exhibited in London, at 4 Spring Gardens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:4492:FD28:82F6:6E8 (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


Requested move 10 March 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Mechanical Turk. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a consensus for the alternative proposed move. BD2412 T 02:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The Turk → The Turk (chess) – Not the primary topic of "The Turk"—see below (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mechanical_Turk/Archive_1&oldid=1219559882"