user17420: It is interesting that Turing worked with some of the best British chess players among them Golombek and Alexander. I am not sure how to characterize it, but he is considered a creative genius at a level and was certainly very important and successful in the code-breaking efforts during WW2.
He would play with Golombek, who I think could allow Turing to change color at a point of his choosing during the game. Although, I am not sure of the constraints; maybe it was up to a certain move. Golombek could then beat Turing from Turing's presumably losing position. I have never played at those odds, but I can't imagine, assuming that Golombek was playing to win, that Turing had much of a position, to begin with. On the other hand, perhaps, Golombek would try to keep a more or less even game so that he had chances. Anyway, I really wonder how weak of a player Turing was and if perhaps some of his games survive.

user7147: A similar question was asked on another forum a few years ago, and the answer that was given was "Alan Turing wasn’t a very strong chess player at all. He was probably at the level of a beginner. He certainly knew the rules of the game, but not much more."
Wikipedia notes, regarding the chess program that Turing and a colleague designed, "... the algorithm is primarily designed around the decision to take a piece or not; according to Turing, the resulting gameplay produces a low level game of chess, which he considered commensurate with his self-described average skill level at the game."  According to the article, Turing's algorithm (it's really difficult to call it a "program", as it never ran on any actual computer - Turning only ever "ran" it on pencil and paper) only looked two half-moves ahead, applied a static evaluation function to each resulting position, and selected as the next move whichever one led to the highest average evaluation after the following half-move.

17420: <p>It is interesting that Turing worked with some of the best British chess players among them Golombek and Alexander. I am not sure how to characterize it, but he is considered a creative genius at a level and was certainly very important and successful in the code-breaking efforts during WW2.</p>
<p>He would play with Golombek, who I think could allow Turing to change color at a point of his choosing during the game. Although, I am not sure of the constraints; maybe it was up to a certain move. Golombek could then beat Turing from Turing's presumably losing position. I have never played at those odds, but I can't imagine, assuming that Golombek was playing to win, that Turing had much of a position, to begin with. On the other hand, perhaps, Golombek would try to keep a more or less even game so that he had chances. Anyway, I really wonder how weak of a player Turing was and if perhaps some of his games survive.</p>
 7147: <p>A similar question was asked on <a href="https://www.quora.com/How-strong-of-a-chess-player-was-Alan-Turing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">another forum</a> a few years ago, and the answer that was given was <em>"Alan Turing wasn’t a very strong chess player at all. He was probably at the level of a beginner. He certainly knew the rules of the game, but not much more."</em></p>

<p>Wikipedia <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turochamp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">notes</a>, regarding the chess program that Turing and a colleague designed, <em>"... the algorithm is primarily designed around the decision to take a piece or not; according to Turing, the resulting gameplay produces a low level game of chess, which he considered commensurate with his self-described average skill level at the game."</em>  According to the article, Turing's algorithm (it's really difficult to call it a "program", as it never ran on any actual computer - Turning only ever "ran" it on pencil and paper) only looked two half-moves ahead, applied a static evaluation function to each resulting position, and selected as the next move whichever one led to the highest average evaluation after the following half-move.</p>
