Talk:Mechanical Turk/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Game scores 

message: [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)
thread_title:  We are waiting for the notation of his play with Napoleon... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Napolean game 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Size discrepancy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Known as Farkas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Game against Napoleon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Passed 

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

message: After editing:
:which measured about 3.5 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).U.S. customary units were used as the basis of measurements in Jay's Journal.  Conversion was done using the tool located at OnlineConversion.com.
(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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spurious erudition, spurious precision 

message: :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)
replies: text: Will fix.  I didn't realize I did it so many times. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Windisch's book

message: :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)
replies: text: Found the German translation, will add. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hindenburg's record

message: :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)
replies: text: good catch, this will be adjusted, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racknitz's book

message: :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)
replies: text: Yes, he was in England. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunneman's book

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes of course, feel very free to do what you like with it. -- Hoary 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dingy image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-wroding of the intro 

message: 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. :)  19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Brilliant, brilliant article...everything an FA should be. Paul 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey Paul, good point.  I concur. Paul Haymon 02:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Great article 

message: "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)
thread_title:  title translation 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: If you read (not skimread) the article, you'll see this discussed. -- Hoary 10:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid people? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Congratulations on getting this to Article of the Day! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification needed in Tour Of Europe? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So how did it work exactly? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Charles Godefroy de La Tour d'Auvergne 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deep Blue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup February 2008 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reference 19 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Turk in Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date of revelation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chess players 

message: 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.
SunCreator (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's no longer required, actually. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternative text 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some Links 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Revealing the secrets section 

message: 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)
replies: text: What do you suggest? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Exposed in 1820s? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A guttengurg ebook on mechanical turk