"The Geek wants out...."
^Ernie Cline, The Geek Wants Out So I took the Geek Test at innergeek.us and scored a 30.1755%. I am a "total geek." Surprisingly, people I sent the test to scored higher than me. In fact, the only person I know to get a lower score is Joe. To think, I wouldn't score well on a test--and of all tests, a geek test! In an effort to bolster my geekhood (not really), I found an interesting book in the Chess section today, The Turk by Tom Standage. It's about a chess-playing machine built in the eighteenth century that wowed audiences around Europe and America including Benjamin Fraklin, Catherine the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Charles Babbage. Dressed in fabulous and exotic clothes (from which the name "the Turk" originated), the machine made international tours and often beat all but some of the top challengers. Hypotheses on the workings of the Turk flew around from all vectors. Some hypothesized that a midget was hidden in the cabinet under the chessboard. Others proposed that magnetism or well concealed drawstrings were involved. Others yet even believed in the ability of an automaton to be programmed to play chess. Of course, we now know that it takes a supercomputer with high-level programming such as Deep Blue to beat top chess players. There must have been a trick to the Turk's operating, right? One interesting ancedote from the book is about when The Turk was brought to America and was making tours of the cities--Boston, Philadelphia, New York, etc. In Baltimore, the Turk was playing against Charles Carroll, the last surviving signatory off the Declaration of Independence. The Turk got one move away from forcing checkmate when Maelzel, the Turk's showman, excused himself and said he needed to make an adjustment to the Turk. After kneeling down, opening one of the rear doors, and finishing adjustments, Maelzel let play resume and watched as the Turk made careless mistakes, letting 89-year-old Carroll win the game. The Turk was not only a machine with a brain, but a machine with a heart, haha. The book also discusses AI theory. A proposal made by computer chess pioneer Alan Turning stated that when computers could pass as human in a) playing a chess game and b) holding a conversation, they would be, for all practical purposes, "intelligent." Computers are now advanced enough to beat the best of human players, and bots can interact with humans in chatrooms or IMs. I know that when I come across a bot in a chatroom, I can't tell if it's a blonde 18yo f looking for fun ;) or really a robot. Oh, back to the Turk. Was there a secret to the machine, or was it just way ahead of its time? I know the answer because I checked out the book as the library was closing and read the last few chapters. You'll have to read the book to find out! XD "In my kind of porno movies the girls wouldn't even have to get naked. They'd just take the guys down to the rec room and beat them repeatedly at chess..." -Ernie Cline, Nerd Porn Auteur
6 Comments:
30.37475%. You'd have to be pretty twisted to get anything higher than 70%.
And by twisted I mean super, super cool.
YES! My score has increased! It's now 30.17751% (it was around 28.5% during high school).
I guess that's why they have the box marked "Throughout my life, my level of geekiness has only increased."
So that means now....I am tied for the lowest Geek score that I know of (I think I mistyped my score and really got your's, Joe). I have to fix this.
Time to build a lightsaber.
See, the test is somewhat flawed - did it say anything about constructing slings to be used for bombarding the School of Optometry? I think not. Surely points would be awarded for such a noble venture...*loads another stone*
MUHAHAHWHA I am just a "geek" scoring with just 20.11834%. What I don't get is that if you were a female, you'd have to check 5 boxes. What?! Being a girl makes and doing stuff like this is making me more geekish? \_/ Bah! I call for a re-right on this test :P
Yes, being a female and even taking the test gets you the extra points.
30.57199%.
--Paul Musgrave
Post a Comment
<< Home