Slashdot Mirror


1770 Mechanical Chess Player Inspired Babbage

dipfan writes "A new book tells the extraordinary true story of a clock-work chess-playing "machine" named The Turk that wowed Europe and the US in the 18th and 19th century, beating Benjamin Franklin and Napoleon, among others. Although it turned out to be a cleverly designed trick, the device is credited with inspiring Charles Babbage (the father of the computer), who played and lost to the automaton in 1820, with the idea that a mechanical engine could be programed to perform tasks... and the rest is computing history, right up to IBM's Deep Blue. There's an article by the author at Wired, and the preface and first chapter of the book The Mechanical Turk available online."

49 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. gain computers, lose clockwork by sniepre · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the first link .. "Kempelen's contraption was, of course, a hoax. It would have been impossible to build a genuine mechanical chess player using 18th-century clockwork technology."

    What is sad to me, is that with the progression of 20th-century computers, and digital watches where even an analouge-faced watch is controlled by quartz crystal and battery, it seems as though the *art* of clockwork has been forgotton....

    --
    Is not life a hundred times too short for us to bore ourselves? -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
    1. Re:gain computers, lose clockwork by Ozan · · Score: 2

      The art of clockwork has not been forgotten, it's just more expensive to build a clock full mechanicaly.

    2. Re:gain computers, lose clockwork by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

      One might also say that the art of carriage building has been forgotten by the makers of automobiles... or the art of the sword has been forgotten by weapon "smiths" of the today...

      An art is only as pertinent as the times in which they exist. The art itself has not been forgotten, but is merely not practiced due to its unnecessary nature.

    3. Re:gain computers, lose clockwork by Elbereth · · Score: 2

      There's a very interesting sub-genre of cyberpunk called steampunk. Clockwork automatons, clockwork airships, eccentric gadgeteers and scientists, all mixed in with a Victorian backdrop.

      Steampunk comic books, computer games, and role-playing games exist, but you might have to search a little harder than usual to find them.

    4. Re:gain computers, lose clockwork by Drath · · Score: 2

      Or i could rent wild wild west, but that ain't going to happen.

    5. Re:gain computers, lose clockwork by Beautyon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ummm you dont know whats happening in watchmaking obiously:

      The Erotic Hour Striker Jaquemart for a fine example of modern watchmaking.

      Nothing has been lost at all.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
  2. Just knowing it's possible (even when it isn't) by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We once had a customer ask for a software feature that looked virtually impossible to implement, but the customer claimed that our competitor's product had the feature and that they would buy our product if we added this feature to it. So we figured it couldn't be that hard then, and we managed to add the feature with a couple days effort.

    Of course it later turned out that the competing product did not have this feature and in fact nobody had ever done it before.

    G.

    1. Re:Just knowing it's possible (even when it isn't) by sunhou · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That reminds me of a science fiction story I read as a kid. A team of two humans was competing with a team of two aliens, to see which team was better at inventing stuff, or rather reproducing an invention from the other's culture.

      The aliens gave the humans a perpetual motion machine as the device that they had to reproduce. Of course the humans figured it was impossible, it must be a hoax, etc. Eventually they decided it was real, and so they set out and invented one themselves.

      (At the end, the aliens revealed that in fact theirs *was* a hoax. The humans had given a fake anti-gravity machine to the aliens, but the alien team couldn't reproduce it, and to avoid diplomatic problems, etc., the human team finally decided they had to invent an actual anti-grav device as well in order to get out of their predicament.)

      It was an enjoyable little story, at least when I read it as a kid.

  3. Modern comp required to beat human in chess? by weird+mehgny · · Score: 2, Funny

    You gotta be kidding! My old 486 always beats me, and that damned thing is generally slower than a dead rock!

  4. A picture of the machine: by Chagrin · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://web.media.mit.edu/~wsack/CAA/chess-machine. html

    --

    I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

    1. Re:A picture of the machine: by 56ker · · Score: 2

      And for those of us who know how to write links in /. - just click here for the picture.

    2. Re:A picture of the machine: by 56ker · · Score: 2

      Actually you're technically wrong there - the original post posted the link with a space in it - which resulted in a 404 error. If someone copied and pated the link without removing it they too would get the error. So if you're going to be pedantic it's for those too lazy to copy, paste the link and remove the superfluous space!

  5. Re:I read the Wired article by antdude · · Score: 2

    Yes, it was in Wired magazine. I can't remember if Wired put it online (Web version) or not.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  6. Ebook heads-up by joebp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a free ebook on Maelzel's Chess Player, written by Edgar Allan Poe. It looks pretty good.

    1. Re:Ebook heads-up by Zach978 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm, free? It seems it requires a Windows lisense (.exe?). Is that just a self extracting to a PDF or something?

      --

      "I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
  7. Re:How is this news? by magicslax · · Score: 2

    Charles Babbage, the pioneer of the mechanical computer, was another famous opponent; he lost two games to the Turk. Babbage was certain it was under human control, though he was not sure how. But he started to wonder whether a genuine chess-playing machine could, in fact, be constructed.

    That is why it's here, not so much news but definately of interest to the slashdot computing crowd.

  8. Re:I read the Wired article by WoodenBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is the Wired article on it. The article was originally in the March 2002 magazine, which focused on AI (gaming and otherwise).

  9. any sufficiently short midget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    what's that expression? any sufficiently short midget is indistinguishable from magic!

  10. Deep Blue is not the End by charnerd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The end-all be-all of chess was not embodied in any creation by IBM, that's for sure. Computer-chess history did not end with Deep Blue, and is still alive and well on the ICC and freechess. The software that is being developed right now is A LOT better than anything the Deep Blue team ever came up with, and I have a feeling that if IBM hadn't pulled the plug on Deep Blue it would have probably lost its next match. But don't take my word for it, already Chess software is approaching the strength of Deep Blue by using hardware 1/100th as powerful. I'm sure that in 5-10 years the best machines will regularly beat the world champions on normal PCs.

  11. If you ever get across to London... by mav[LAG] · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...you must go and see the working model of Babbage's difference engine #2 at the Science Museum. It was completed in 1991 by the staff using Babbage's drawings and worked first time.

    --
    --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    1. Re:If you ever get across to London... by CelticLo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Babbages Differential Engine No. 1 was gifted by Babbage to the "Kensington Musuem" after it secured the grant to build Engine No. 2 To quote Charles Babbage's autobiography "Passages from the Life of a Philosopher" It was commenced 1823. This portion put together 1833. The construction abandoned 1842. ... This portion was in the Exhibition 1862.

    2. Re:If you ever get across to London... by edremy · · Score: 2
      Actually, if you read The Difference Engine by Doron Swade (not Sterling+Gibson) you'll find that the drawings were not enough to actually build the device.

      There were some omissions (what materials to use for each part), unclarity (How was the device oiled?) and just plain errors (The "handedness" of the carry mechanism was exactly backwards and would not have worked in reality. Swade offers that it might have a deliberate error to prevent copying.)

      It didn't exactly work the first time either: he goes into some detail over the build process, which basically was "Add part, try to move the linkage, listen to a part go 'ping' as it breaks, find broken pieces, repeat until done."

      Still an amazing device- Babbage was way ahead of his time.

      Eric

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    3. Re:If you ever get across to London... by cornflux · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oddly enough, I've just returned from a week-long vacation (holiday, if you prefer) in London and was able to visit the Babbage exhibit.

      For as much as Babbage contributed, I found the exhibit extremely lacking in information and delinquent in relating the importance of his work.

      They did indeed have difference engine #2, however it was covered and being worked on by a couple gentlemen who did not appear willing or capable of fielding an inquiry.

      Also, the exhibit neglected to make any significant mention of Babbage's work outside of the difference engine(s): encryption, politics, analytical engine, etc.

      As a side note, I did, however, find that their weather exhibit was excellent and very informative. On the other hand, the mathematics exhibit was, like the Babbage exhibit, disappointing.

  12. Steam Man by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When Professor Campion unveiled Boilerplate in 1893, the concept of a mechanical man was not a new one. Edward S. Ellis, in 1865, wrote about a prodigy that constructed a non-sentient automaton called the Steam Man. At the time, it was considered to be nothing more than an elaborate novelty item, like Boilerplate. Stories of its feats were relegated to the tabloids and "Edisonades." In the account entitled Steam Man of the Prairies (the first of several such publications), Johnny Brainerd, a teenage dwarf, invented "a man that shall go by steam." Here is how it was described: This is a later, cruder version

  13. The Turk is no different than chess programs today by scubacuda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is The Turk different than modern chess programs today?

    Even the best chess programs (Big Blue, etc.) today require the input of humans. They are given instructions, and apply those instructions in a "brute force" fashion to all data in its parameters. The vast majority of the calculations that a computer is asked to make is pure bullshit.

    Human intelligence will always have the distinct advantage of eliminating a lot of worthless calculations.

  14. Some extra pictures to illustrate the story by afflatus_com · · Score: 4, Informative
    An excellent story, but a little bereft of graphics. Here are some extra pictures to flush out the idea of the device:
    --

    -----
    Cast a Cold Eye
    On Life, on Death
    Horseman, pass by
    --W.B. Yeats' gravestone
  15. Good read... by powerlinekid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Very interesting article... however I find it unfortunate that we don't know how he pulled the hoax off. Based on what I know about automata, it may be very possible to build a chess playing machine. However doing this a hundred+ years ago? I doubt it mostly due to the fact that creating the gears and other mechanisms needed required an amazing amount of time, skill and perfection. In fact this is why I heard Babbage's machine didn't work and the project fell through. I believe someone recently (if someone can find a article for this) built babbage's machine using the old blue-prints and it worked. Another thing is, if this is a hoax I wonder who was the playing the chess. The article definitly points out that the machine was very good at what it did. They only mention one case of it being beaten (along with the napoleon incident), which would mean whoever was playing was damn good. If someone was that good, why would they hide behind the guise of a machine and not reap the benefits of being one of the best chess players in the world? Oh well, definitly a good read though.
    Oh one more thing, the duck? They mention that it could take food out of a hand... how the hell did it do this? The last time I checked, motion sensors, digital cameras and such hadn't been invented yet. How the hell did the thing see where it was going, and have the ability to interact with a specific location?

    --

    can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    1. Re:Good read... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly what I was trying to say. So if there are any mechanical engineers out there who have any ideas what-so-ever, it would be great if you could post them on how such a machine (even if it is a hoax) could be pulled off.

      /powerlinekid

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    2. Re:Good read... by quantaman · · Score: 2

      In the wired article it says,

      The chess player had indeed been controlled by a concealed operator using a clever system of folding partitions to remain hidden while the automaton's interior was open to view.

      They mention it right at the end a while after they seem to drop the topic of the turk. As for the player I assume back then as with many sports nowadays only the best make lot's of money. I'm that he could of found a very good chess player who was happy for a significant cut of the money. Remember that he was beaten several times and while someone like Benjamin Franklin would no doubt be a very good chess player I doubt he had the experience to play at a highly competitive level. The thing I find strange is that it took them several years after it was destroyed to figure out that it was a hoax. One would think that in a museum they would have a chance to inspect it more closely than Maelzel would normally allow and find the person hidden.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Good read... by Restil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if you're REALLY good at something, if you play against someone whom you consider or assume to be considerably inferior to you, you will tend to unconsiously dumb down your strategy, and then even if you're a grandmaster, anyone of relatively decent skill will be able to beat you.

      The people playing the Turk weren't really playing to win. They were playing to see if this machine could play the game. They were too amazed by its ability to play AT ALL to bother much with trying to beat it. They might even intentionally make stupid "I wonder if he'll catch this" mistakes which ultimately sacrifice the game for them, no matter HOW good they might be.

      Probably the only time it got beat was the one time that someone actually paid attention to the game itself, rather than the opposing player.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    4. Re:Good read... by powerlinekid · · Score: 2

      Post on Babbage's machne
      Thank you, see i knew i was right.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    5. Re:Good read... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Informative
      How the hell did it work?

      Here's a good explanation.

    6. Re:Good read... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, it's a two-part explanation. Here's the second part.

    7. Re:Good read... by JordanH · · Score: 2
      I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the other Chess playing machines that were operated during the 19th century.

      Here's a good article.

      Note that Mephisto was thought to be operated in 1879 by Gunsberg, probably one of the top 5 or 10 players of the time, and Aheeb was operated by Pillsbury between 1898 and 1904, which was during his prime. Pillsbury may have been the strongest player in the world for a few of those years, with a string of tournament successes and brilliant wins over the then World Champion Lasker.

      The players in these machines were often top players. I don't see any mention of these machines defeating world-class players, just notable Amateurs. Gunsberg and Pillsbury could easily defeat any Amateur regardless of the Amateurs having their guard up or down.

      The machines gained great reputations, some said they played flawlessly like a machine. I imagine that the players concentrated very hard to try and defeat them.

    8. Re:Good read... by darien · · Score: 3, Informative

      I read in today's Sunday Telegraph that the chess pieces were magnetic, and each square on the board had a metal flap attached to the underside which was held up by the magnet. The chap in the box could see which flap had dropped and which had flipped up and so work out which piece had been moved where and replicate it on his own (probably miniature) chessboard. The same article also described that the Turk's arm was actually part of a pantograph, so the man inside just had to move a pointer to the relevant place on his chess-board and the Turk's hand would move to the same place on the outside board. He then simply had to squeeze the bulb/lever that made the Turk close its hand, move the pantograph pointer to the new square, and let go. A very ingenious and (I would imagine) well-executed piece of engineering.

      Afraid I threw the paper away, and I can't find the article on the web, but I'm 99% certain this is all from Tom Standage's book.

    9. Re:Good read... by enkidu · · Score: 2
      Edgar Allen Poe did a good analysis of the machine which he published (It may be available from the Gutenberg project for free... Why here it is.) Here's a link to some background info. Poe's essay is a good read, a little hard to follow without good diagrams but a good look into how smart he was.

      Don't know how the duck worked, so I can't help you there. But people can be amazingly clever with the tools on hand.

      Enkidu EOT

      --

      There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
      -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  16. For the lazy by LordNimon · · Score: 2
    For those of you too lazy to read the entire article:

    "The chess player had indeed been controlled by a concealed operator using a clever system of folding partitions to remain hidden while the automaton's interior was open to view."

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  17. Another story about this by neolith · · Score: 4, Informative

    James Randi did a nice write up about this, with some great pictures and commentary about the machine on his site. You can find a direct link to the articles here and here. I especially enjoyed the artwork depicting how the person inside fit in the contraption and enabled it to play chess. This was a very, very clever little hoax!

    --
    Like my comments? Try my podcast: http://www.baldmove.com
  18. Re:I read the Wired article by dipfan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The book's just been published here in the UK, and the weekend's papers have got reviews - including one that makes the same point (sort of) about Deep Blue. There's a good review here by Simon Singh, the guy that wrote Fermat's Last Theorem; he mentions that Edmund Cartwright set about building the first power weaving loom after seeing the Turk, reasoning that if a machine could play chess it must be possible to build one that could weave, and so contributing to the start of the industrial revolution.

    BTW, the author of the Mechanical Turk is the technology correspondent of The Economist magazine, I see from his website.

  19. Impossible? by Alomex · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Kempelen's contraption was, of course, a hoax. It would have been impossible to build a genuine mechanical chess player using 18th-century clockwork technology."

    Don't sell old technology too short. While a fully playing chess computer was beyond their reach, there were genuine automata in the 18th and early 19th century that could play end-games mechanically. Another examples of amizingly advanced automaton is the Swiss scribe, which can be programed to write a persons name with a quilt in long-hand, including pausing to dip the quilt in the ink well.

    That would still be a challenging task for a robotic arm today.

    Lastly the entire mechanism that allowed the chessmen to be grasped by a person from inside the Tuks was not replicated until a few decades back, again by "advanced" robotic research.

  20. Re:I read the Wired article by antdude · · Score: 2

    Yep! That's the one! Someone mod this thread up ;).

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  21. robotic arm by bpb213 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "That would still be a challenging task for a robotic arm today"

    Not hardly. Mechanically extremely easy, we just have to write the software :)

    --

    This .sig looking for creative and witty saying.
  22. Alan Turing by benthesinister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Turing talked a lot about the Babbage Engine in his famous essay "Can Machines Think?" While that fact has very little bearing upon the article, Turing's essay touches upon the meaning of what it means to be human and whether it can be replicated. The Babbage Engine was his way of disproving that electricity is what makes humans human. Effectively it also banished the notion that it is any physical or quantifiable thing that makes humans human.

  23. Other purposes by attackiko · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those machines were not built just to get rich:

    In 1879 Mephisto (Gunsberg) went on tour, defeating every male player. However, when playing ladies, it would obtain a winning position, then lose the game, offering to shake hands afterwards

    .. but also to get chicks!

  24. but Charles Babbage is NOT the father of computing by JDizzy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We Americans would love to convince ourselves that we, rather Charles Babbage, invented the computer. The British have Allan Turing, and a Postal Inspector for their first computer, or so they like to think. However, the fact is that the first computer was invented by Konrad Zuse (1910-1995) at the age of 28 (1938). Konrad was unfortunately living under a Nazi Dictatorship at the time. Turing was brilliant, and Zuse probably didn't hold a candle to Turing. However, I have to step in and make sure the bogus headline here on Slashdot does not perpetuate the silly myth. Konrad Zuse is the father of computing!

    --
    It isn't a lie if you belive it.
  25. They never *built* it by QuantumG · · Score: 2

    This seems kind of important dont you think? Ada was fidling around with programming. Surely anyone who wrote down how to do long division was a programmer too! Babbage was a legend, but just like all the people who say their inventions predated Edison, they never actually built them.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  26. This applies to science too. by Schwarzchild · · Score: 2

    If you don't know that it can't be done, then you try and maybe you'll succeed. Just because people think it can't be done doesn't mean that it's impossible to do.

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  27. Speech synthesis by pipacs · · Score: 2, Interesting
    According to Randi's description:
    "A small bellows and vibrating reed, a sort of artificial speaking mechanism, was incorporated whereby the operator could signal "check!" by forcing air through a tube. The approximation of the word "check" was said to lack clarity..."
    Randi says this was an improvement made by Maelzel, who bought the machine after von Kempelen's death, but I think this idea, too, came from Kempelen's work, who spent his last years researching speech synthesis. Quiet successfully as he actually did build a speech synthetizer capable producing whole words and short sentences. And this machine was not a trick: it is exhibited in the Deutches Museum in Munich, and, according to the author of the link I mentioned, still functional.
  28. and what about Blaise Pascal ? by dario_moreno · · Score: 2, Insightful


    an almost forgotten programming language
    bears his name, because he was the one,
    about 1660, to build the first adding
    and multiplying machine....Babbage
    was surely aware of his work !

    --
    Google passes Turing test : see my journal