The Chess Machine That Only Pretended to Think
Debuted in seventeen seventy, an automaton called the Turk defeated Benjamin Franklin and Napoleon Bonaparte at chess, convincing spectators that clockwork could reason. Decades passed before the public learned how human masters guided the cabinet from within. This is how an eighteenth-century illusion exposed our enduring instinct to mistake clever engineering for intelligence.
Listen in the Fylom app.
Wolfgang von Kempelen built a chess-playing automaton to rival illusions shown to Empress Maria Theresa.
Hidden human chess masters used magnetic pieces and hanging iron needles to track moves blindly.
A mechanical pantograph translated the hidden operator's movements into the automaton's arm gestures.
Napoleon Bonaparte made illegal moves and lost to the machine in eighteen-o-nine.
Edgar Allan Poe deduced the machine had to conceal a human relying on adaptive judgment.
Watching the machine in eighteen nineteen inspired Charles Babbage to develop the Analytical Engine.
- 01Intro1 min
- 02The Illusion of Clockwork Thought3 min
- 03The Machinery of Concealment2 min
- 04Imperial Matches and Deductive Sceptics3 min
- 05The Enduring Theater of Automation3 min
- 06Outro1 min
- The Speaking Figure and the Automaton Chess-player
- The mechanical turk ai marvel or parlor trick
- Turk, The Chess Automaton
- Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore - Articles - Edgar Allan Poe and Baron von Kempelen's Chess-Playing Automaton (H. R. Evans, 1939) (Main text)
- How a Phony 18th-Century Chess Robot Fooled the World | HISTORY
- The Mechanical Turk Chess-Player that shocked the world!
- Mechanical Turk - Wikipedia
- The Chess-Playing Machine that Beat Napoleon
- “Échec!”
- The History of Computer Chess - Part 1 - The 'Mechanical' Turk
- Wolfgang von Kempelen
- The Turk - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The Mechanical Turk
- Mechanical Turk revisited | Internet with a Brain
- The chess playing machine that beat benjamin franklin and napoleon 73265
- Mechanical Turk: The Chess Automaton | PDF | Chess
- OUT OF THE BOX: Artists Play Chess - World Chess Hall of Fame & Galleries
- Object of intrigue the turk
- An 18th-Century Chess-Playing Robot: The Mechanical Turk | Ripley
- Maelzel, Schlumberger and the Turk
- MAELZEL’S CHESS-PLAYER
- youtube.com
- The mechanical turk a chess playing android from 1770
- John K. Mitchell’s Automaton Chess Player
- Mechanical Turk | PDF
- Philip Thicknesse :: People :: Grub Street Project
- Project MUSE -- Verification required!
- Maelzel's Chess Player - Wikipedia
- The Mechanical Turk: An 18th Century Chess Playing Robot
- The Chess Monthly (American magazine) - Wikipedia
- The mechanical turk how a chess playing hoax inspired real computers 40766
- Returnofthecrowds aytes.pdf
- The Mechanical Turk: The Automaton Chess Player
- Turk pseudo automaton
- city.ac.uk
- History of Information
- The turk chess automaton
- 363237734 The mechanical Turk a short history of 'artificial artificial intelligence'
- 318266323 The Mechanical Turk Enduring Misapprehensions Concerning Artificial Intelligence
- The mechanical turk enduring misapprehensions concerning 4wm4meunem.pdf
- 379266355 Anthropomorphism and AI hype
- Deceptive AI systems that give explanations are just as convincing as honest AI systems in human-machine decision making – MIT Media Lab
- Deceptive AI Systems That Give Explanations Are Just as Convincing as Honest AI Systems in Human-Machine Decision Making
- Turing test - Wikipedia
- A neo luddite manifesto or why i do not love robots 4ho5ccc4nr.pdf
- Living In A Ghost World, These Data Workers Make the Internet Possible
- Opinion: What's behind the AI boom? Exploited humans
- techmeme.com
- 10 modern feats of automation that were just humans in disguise
- 10 Modern ‘Mechanical Turks’: When Automation Is Just Humans in Disguise
Fylom generates episodes like this on any topic you're curious about.
Fylom episodes are researched, written, and voiced by AI. Automated checks help catch inaccuracies, but episodes aren't reviewed by a human and AI can still get things wrong. Treat them as a starting point, not a source of record — more in our accuracy disclaimer.