Here are a few points of note for anyone who wants to seriously get to grips with this historically significant article.<p>1 - Notice that the first paragraph is dedicated to the rejection of the question "Can machines think" later described as "too meaningless to deserve discussion", the proposed experiment is not presented as a way to answer that question, but as a "closely related" replacement.<p>2 - It's a matter of continuing debate whether Turing actually expected the experiment to be performed, or to remain a thought experiment. Some evidence for the former is that in a less popular paper "Intelligent Machinery" (Turing, 1948) he describes an idealised form of an experiment he did actually perform, where a person plays chess against an opponent that may be either a human player or a human following an algorithm, and attempts to determine the nature of his opponent. Evidence for the latter is that Turing explains the experiment isn't about existent machines, but "imaginable computers which would do well".<p>3 - The precise experiment is not clear, when "a machine takes the part of [the hidden man]", is the interrogator told he's questioning a man and a woman, or a machine and a woman? Is it significant that the machine takes the male's place, and takes the place of the deceiver? Can questions be directed to one hidden player, or are they always seen by both? Note that to "pass" is not to merely pass as a human, but to be as good as a human at this game of bluff and deception. Note also that the woman's aim is to be correctly identified as such. Also later in the paper Turing mentions "five minutes of questioning", if that includes the time to type the questions to each individual and receive responses, that doesn't leave much time for proper interrogation.<p>4 - Turing notes that a machine might be doing something that "ought to be described as thinking" and still fail to pass the test, but that should a machine pass we needn't concern ourself with this possibility.