Talk:Mechanical Turk

final years

Why this neglect? Why didn't they keep the machine? Then what is the story of the fires spreading in Europe? It is really something that provokes anger and irony. This is an invaluable thing and they pass it on to each other!! we must rebuild the machine and don't pollutant it by electronics. 37.239.162.34 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

French short film: Histoires extraordinaires : Le Joueur d'échecs de Maelzel (1981)

This film may be added to poular culture section.

I saw this movie on TV when I was a boy and it made a great impression on me. I finally managed to track it down online. The presentation I saw was dubbed into the Afrikaans language by South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and shown under the title "Die Skaak Masjien" (The chess machine). My childhood memory of the film is vague, except that I remember it as scary. The end of the film made a lasting impression on me. The chess machine was taken out to a place in the Mexican desert on horseback and tied to a cactus as a kind of death sentence. The policemen who tied it up and rode off was unaware of the dwarf chess player inside the cabinet. The final scene shows the dwarf's leg dangling from the box.

The only written information I could find is on the bdff web page, first link below. There are a few good stills and release articles that may be of interest on the same web page. The film is not available for purchase or rental online, so this page contains the only description of the plot, which is a fictional drama, containing the the characters Mälzel and Schlumberger, and of course the Turk, but with no baring on the actual biographical history of any of the characters.

The director, Juan Luis Buñuel, was the son of the famous Luis Buñuel, Spanish film director, linked to Surrealist era.

Title: Histoires extraordinaires (series) : Le Joueur d'échecs de Maelzel (episode 1) Director: Juan Luis Buñuel Details (from IMDB) Release date: February 7, 1981 (France) Countries of origin: France, Mexico Languages: French, Spanish Filming locations: Toluca, Estado de México, Mexico Production company: France 3 Runtime: 50 minutes

links:

http://php88.free.fr/bdff/image_film.php?ID=15189

https://m.cinemagia.ro/filme/histoires-extraordinaires-le-joueur-dechecs-de-maelzel-167600

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0341422/?ref_=ttep_ep1 Blewbubbles (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That looks interesting, Blewbubbles. Unfortunately the second and third of those three sources are worthless, but the first seems good enough. (The Wikipedia page fr:Histoires extraordinaires (série télévisée) is unusable too.) But one decent source is all we need. Feel free to add a mention of it to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Chess terminology

The article seems to use the terms "match" and "game" interchangeably. A match is a series of games, and it is not clear whether any of the "matches" listed in the history were more than one game. If so,there would be a score for the match. Wastrel Way (talk)Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point, Wastrel Way. If you could check that each "match" wasn't a mere game, and perhaps also that each "game" wasn't an entire match, and keep a log of your findings here, perhaps concluding that this or that instance of "match" (or "game") is unknowable without access to the source, that would be most helpful. Then other editors could be enlisted for their help with the troublesome examples. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Chinese Museum

The article says the Turk was burnt in the Chinese Museum of Charles Willson Peale in 1854. I am trying to work out how this relates to (Charles Willson) Peale's Philadelphia Museum, but it is complicated, as CWP died in 1827 and the museum collection was sold in 1849. Nathan Dunn apparently had a Chinese Museum in Peale's Museum building from 1838. TSventon (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It was indeed Peale's Philadelphia Museum, I have clarified both articles. TSventon (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Change main image?

Currently the 'main' image, and the one that shows up in linked thumbnails, is one where the description says that "[the author] was wrong both about the position of the operator and the dimensions of the automaton". Meanwhile, another image in the article has the caption: "A copper engraving of the Turk, showing the open cabinets and working parts. A ruler at bottom right provides scale. Kempelen was a skilled engraver and may have produced this image himself."

Wouldn't it make sense to have the image that is more accurate and mabye even made by the original designer as the article's main image? 2001:1C04:3E0A:DD00:F52D:7C11:651C:7C5E (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Featured Article issues

I learned about this from Sarah Z's video on cheating at chess.

• Revealing the secrets section is very choppy and includes mentions of dubious relevance. First paragraph also makes an unsourced claim of inaccuracy.
• Lots of unsourced content in the "popular culture" section, including multiple one-sentence paragraphs.
• The "dimensions" part in "Notes" feels like original research. I also don't feel the giant quote in note C is necessary.
• Many sources are missing page numbers.
• "Online" link not necessary in Footnote 47.
• Footnote 47 (Deep Blue...) is a mess and needs to be re-attributed.
• Footnote 77 (Chess Base) is incomplete.

My biggest concern is that the "Popular Culture" section is bloated with trivia and primary sources.

Pinging @Hoary:, @Ihardlythinkso:. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Why me? I wondered. The talk page archive revealed that I'd spent my time on this article -- but back before many WP editors were born. I'd quite forgotten. ¶ I've edited the pop-culture-etc section, slightly. After doing so, I noticed that TenPoundHammer had been there before me. So I deleted some of what TPH had decided to retain. Did I perhaps go too far? Feel free to revert some (all?) of my edits. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I pinged you because the page edit stats said you were the most prominent editor of this article who was still active. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Me, prominent? I'd hoped to slither through life unnoticed. (And Sarah Z is a new name to me. I'd been under the impression that this week's videos tended toward cheating at golf.) Well, I've done a small but not insignificant percentage of the needed work. Which of the tasks are you planning to tackle, TenPoundHammer? NB There are some that you don't mention. Take page numbers: you want them specified. A very reasonable request, but the current specifications follow any of at least three patterns, exemplified by (A) Levitt, 30–31. (B) Daniel Willard Fiske (1859). The Book of the first American Chess Congress: Containing the Proceedings of that celebrated Assemblage, held in New York, in the Year 1857. Rudd & Carleton. p. 456. and (C) the combination of Daniel Willard Fiske (1859). The Book of the first American Chess Congress: Containing the Proceedings of that celebrated Assemblage, held in New York, in the Year 1857. Rudd & Carleton. and ⁴²⁶. The lack of a single format is poor. What to do (and who's going to do it)? -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary: This isn't my area of expertise, so I don't know if I'd be any help beyond open ended recommendations of "this should be improved". As I said, I learned about the subject through a YouTube video and decided to look it up, and thought some parts of the article needed touching up. It's generally recommended to give such a notification if you feel a Featured Article needs work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, virtually all the credit for this article should go to Bdj (last seen in 2007). I've never read a single book chapter about the Turk; and as far as I remember I've never read anything about chess (other than The Defense), automata, west European ("orientalist"?) images of Turks, popular attractions, etc. Except, that is, for this article. But of course neither you nor I need subject expertise in order (A1) to point out that a lot of book references lack the page references that they should have (thank you for that), (A2) to point out that those that do have page references aren't consistent in the method they choose, (A3) to decide among the acceptable methods of citing books, (B1) to convert references from one style to another, or (B2) to find page numbers. It's just that the "(B)" tasks require a lot more time and energy than the "(A)" tasks; and that the "(B)" tasks are a lot more palatable for editors who find the subject at least moderately interesting. I do find the subject interesting, so I'll try to do some work on this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Page (within book, etc) references

As TenPoundHammer points out in "Featured Article issues", a number of references to books etc are lacking the page references that they should have. With the hope that at least one of these sources will be at the Internet Archive, I thought I'd try looking. (And I'd hope that other editors would join me.) But how to add the page numbers? The article currently uses three systems, among which it makes far the most use of the one exemplified by

• Levitt, 71–83.
• Levitt, 83–86.
• Levitt, 87–91.

(currently "citations" 56–58), which for an explanation require that the reader should search for and find either

• Gerald M. Levitt, The Turk, Chess Automaton (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2000), 40.

(currently "citation" 14) above or

• Levitt, Gerald M. (2000). The Turk, chess automaton. McFarland & Co Inc Pub. ISBN 0-7864-0778-6.

(in the "References") below.

This, I submit, is rather a crappy way of providing information. I don't want to make yet more use of it.

This article has changed little since 2007. Back then Template:Harvard citation was in its infancy and Template:Sfn didn't exist. I recommend switching to one or other within this family of Author–date citation templates, which would, for example, change what's now "Levitt, 83–86" to "Levitt (2000), 83–86" (or similar, depending on the flavor of Harv*/Sfn* used) and link this to

• Levitt, Gerald M. (2000). The Turk, Chess Automaton. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland. ISBN 0-7864-0778-6..

in the bibliography. I'd even be willing to do the work myself. But I want the go-ahead for it first. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)