Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Alan Turing vs Alick Glennie
"Turing Test" (game of the day Jun-23-2012)
Friendly game (1952), Manchester ENG
Vienna Game: Falkbeer Variation (C26)  ·  0-1


Annotations by NN.      [53 more games annotated by NN]

explore this opening
find similar games more games of A Turing
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-05-07  whatthefat: <Ziggurat>

I saw that Keene quote in a google search, but could only find one source, which was somone rambling on a forum. That's when I thought it might be a Chess for Tigers reference, but alas no.

Dec-05-07  mrbiggs: I got caught on all of those, but also Anand, the "Tiger from Madras."
Dec-05-07  The beginner: I was looking at every simon webb game, lots of Petrosian, some colections from Karpov's game, all chessmaster, and chess 4,7 computers and other stuff. but had to give up. This was a tuff one
Feb-07-08  D.Observer: Where is Turing's source code?
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: Actually chessbase has a free downloadable engine which it claims to be the "written out" Turing engine, but chessbase's engine plays worse than this one(despite a higher search depth - about 4 ply instead of 2 play in this game).
Aug-16-10  scormus: And today's puzzle is ...... given that that Alan Turing did NOT have access to a prpgrammable computer, could this "count" as a computer playing as W?

click, click, click .......
Got it!

Mar-15-12  MichaelJHuman: Seems like some posters did not understand what was done here. In theory there was NO computer. Just an algorithm. One presumably simple enough to evaluate each node (position) fairly quickly. Turing may have intuitively skipped some moves as obviously bad to speed up his eval. The node eval function could have been VERY simple. Such as counting material, and maybe some very simple adjustments for doubled paws and such.

I have no idea what his manual serach depth was. In 30 minutes, even the brilliant Turing could not have looked at 1000's of nodes I think. Which limits depth.

A real program can cut off useless branchces with idea if he was doing that.

Very interesting to me, who works as a software engineer.

Mar-15-12  AlanPardew: Why do elephants have big ears?

Because Noddy wouldn't pay the ransom.

Mar-15-12  MichaelJHuman: That was obscure Alan (had to google it)
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: <shortsight: Still, I think this game is too good for a computer in the year 1952.>

Seems like a better class of game than many that came afterwards. Turing's algorithms must have been really well constructed.

Jun-21-12  jahhaj: For those interested in the Turing algorithm used in this game this lecture by GK should be fascinating.

Jun-22-12  piroflip: It's very obvious that most smart a$$ posters here haven't got a clue about the history of this game. There was NO electronic playing engine. The moves were worked out on paper from a written program and then played.
Premium Chessgames Member
  twinlark: Indeed, and tomorrow happens to be the 100th anniversary of Turing's birth, may he rest in peace.

The Turing Centenary Conference is being held in Manchester, and part of the attraction for chess players will feature Kasparov speaking about the reconstruction of Turing's <Paper Machine>:

Jun-22-12  sfm: <elh: sfm's claim that a chess-playing algorithm requires many programmer-years is ludicrous.>

I haven't gone through my 6-year old statements, but wonder where I said exactly that.

There is a world of difference between an "algorithm" that can made legal moves, and one which makes good moves.

<Computer chess is quite simple. At high level the algorithm is basically For each legal move from the current position:
Calculate material balance
Repeat to desired search depth.>

Such a program could just as well play h3,a3,b2 as the first, second, third move.

<If you are unconcerned with optimizations, it could surely be coded in about a hundred short lines.

If you are unconcerned with readability, it could be stuffed into eight or ten lines of obfuscated perl.>

You start your posting with talking about how long _time_ it takes to write programs. Then you talk about compressing/obfuscating them.

Any programmer knows that this takes more time to do, not less - so it appears not to be relevant.

<Such a chess program would be fairly easy to beat positionally>

Such a program would be incredibly easy to beat for a human that had played chess for less than a week. It would not make a single sensible move, apart from saving material if it could see it being lost.

<...since it would ignore important but less tangible factors such as piece activity, pawn structure, etc. While true positional understanding is beyond the reach of computers, a very convincing approximation can be achieved by throwing in a few simple heuristics (like a minus score for backward pawns), and simple brute-force searching.>

Ah, we are going a bit beyond the handful of lines, aren't we?

Trying to make anything worthwhile will take considerable time. Chess programmers have in total dozens of man-years on developing programs.

<Computer chess is considered very old hat by computer scientists.>

An truly odd statement. Can you bring any quotes?

<Everyone and his dog has written a chess engine>

Despite spending 5 years in AU, Denmark, in the Computer Science faculty, I don't know any one who actually carried out this task, despite a number of them being most interested in chess. The general opinion was, that to get it anyway further than legal moves would eat enormous time.

<..and judging by the attitudes of certain posters here, i may have to write one myself to prove the point.>

Which you didn't exactly get done, I assume? Even less so one that actually made sensible moves.

- - -

This thing started with my claim that Turing has not written an algorithm where you'd feed a position into, and that it would return these moves, simply by doing calculations as computers can do.

Anyone who knows the very least about Turing's work, and computer science history, would write it off as, yes, ludicrous.

Should anyone know about just one single other algorithm, published at that time, that would come anywhere near this in complexity, please let me know. We would have world sensation.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Here is part of the algorithm used, dubbed "Turochamp."

<1. Mobility: For the queen, rooks, bishops, add the square roots of the number of moves that the piece can make, counting a capture as two moves.

2. Piece safety: For the rooks, bishops and knights add 1 point if there is one defender and 1.5 if there is more than one

3. King mobility: For the king use the same method of scoring as for the piece, but do not count castling

4. King safety: Deduct points for the king's vulnerability, defined as the number of moves that a queen could make were it on the square of the king

5. castling: add 1 point if castling is still legally possible after this move. Add another point if castling is immediately possible or if a castling move has just been made

6. Pawn credit: score .2 points for each rank advanced and .3 points for each pawn defended by one or more non pawns

7. Check and mate threats. Score 1 point for the threat of mate, and .5 points for a checkmaterial values used to each of the pieces were:pawn =1, knight=3, bishop=3.5 rook =5, queen=10 >

Then apply Minimax strategy to that evaluation. It's far from perfect from a chess perspective (why does it like to see pieces defend pawns, shouldn't it be praising pawns defending pawns?) although I find his definition of "king safety" just delightful.

Jun-23-12  rilkefan: This strikes me as a wonderful game for a pen-and-paper vaguely real-time calculation.
Jun-23-12  jahhaj: <Sneaky> This is Turing's actual algorithm, or have you just made it up? What's your source?
Jun-23-12  jahhaj: A quick google provides this link http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.....
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Sorry for not giving a source, I was copying-and-pasting this link

(It in turn cites the book "Kasparov versus Deep Blue: Computer Chess Comes of Age," by Monty Newborn, page 24.)

Premium Chessgames Member
  xreny: itīs remarkable this game was played for an ancient Paper computer !!!
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: It's also worth quoting: <Champernowne later said 'they were a bit slapdash about all this and must have made a number of slips since the arithmetic was extremely tedious with pencil and paper'. In a CCC forum post, Frederic Friedel mentioned a search depth of up to three plies. > http://chessprogramming.wikispaces....

"They were a bit slapdash about all of this" ... haha, that makes me smile. You gotta love how our friends across the pond talk.

Jun-23-12  himadri: except the queens last kamakazi attack the game is fine. I think Turing still has a draw after 29.Qxb5. This means the algorithm is ok the search ply has to be improved.
Jun-23-12  jahhaj: <Sneaky> Thanks. Also worth saying that this is a reconstruction of the algorithm, the original seems to be lost.
Jun-23-12  jahhaj: Reading the above link again, amazingly you can get the Turing algorithm as an engine for Fritz! I love it.
Jun-23-12  scormus: Let us imagine Mr Glennie was in another room, and the only input he received was the moves being bed back to him by some servant.

With the knowledge he had at the time, would he be able to determine whether the W move were chosen solely by an algorithm or was there some human intervention?

Perhaps this question is rather relevent today, and even more in contexts other than chess ;)

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 4)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
<This page contains Editor Notes. Click here to read them.>
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
Turing used a paper and a pencil
from Special games by Brit
June 23: Turing Test
from Game of the Day 2012 by Phony Benoni
Turing test
from jcruelty's favorite games by jcruelty
The First Computer Chess Game?
from Games of historical interest. by
philo's favorite games
by philo
This is arguably the first computer chess game.
from 1940s & 50s Barious Beauties & Bonehead BBQs by fredthebear
August 10: Turing Test
from Game of the Day 2005 by Phony Benoni
This is arguably the first computer chess game.
from Comp Chomps, Chumps & Challenges CageFredthebear by fredthebear

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC