Sorry, I am being ambiguous myself. I meant that your interpretation of this specific sentence had not occurred to me:
> We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?"
I think you are right about what Turing meant. But it had honestly never occurred to me before that this description of the game could be understood as a description of the standard 'Turing test'. So, for this reason, I had always been sympathetic to the point that the standard Turing test does not appear to be the test that Turing describes in the original paper.
Thanks for the paper! I wasn't aware of it but it's very much what I wanted to say. The bit about Turing's other test involving chess was particularly interesting.
> We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?"
I think you are right about what Turing meant. But it had honestly never occurred to me before that this description of the game could be understood as a description of the standard 'Turing test'. So, for this reason, I had always been sympathetic to the point that the standard Turing test does not appear to be the test that Turing describes in the original paper.
Here is a paper that makes your case, in case anyone finds it interesting. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gualtiero-Piccinini/pub...