[edit: You edited your comment but it used to say it fails "the test as described" and that the competitions are invalid since they do not follow the rules. I presume you looked up the actual test afterwards and realized how wild your "completely fails" comments were - and did a 360 and rewrote the comment. Keeping my original response below.]

> the test as described

I hope you realize that the original Turing test is where you have a man and a woman trying to convince an interrogator that they are of the opposite sex. The test is to replace one with a machine and see if the interrogator would decide the wrong sex as often as when there's an actual human playing.

So if we're talking about the actual test, as described, the most basic bots have passed it a long time ago. If we're talking about the standard interpretation (convince the interrogator that the bot is human) it's a derived version that has no intrinsic rules and was not described by Turing.

PS:

> wrong sex

You can read the original paper it’s clear in his version the goal for the computer is trying to convince someone communicating with them it’s human even though the form is to convince someone they are male. “The game may perhaps be criticised on the ground that the odds are weighted too heavily against the machine. If the man were to try and pretend to be the machine he would clearly make a very poor showing. He would be given away at once by slowness and inaccuracy in arithmetic.” https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

It’s also clear he’s referring to the spirit of the game not the specific details: “It might be urged that when playing the "imitation game" the best strategy for the machine may possibly be something other than imitation of the behaviour of a man. This may be, but I think it is unlikely that there is any great effect of this kind. In any case there is no intention to investigate here the theory of the game, and it will be assumed that the best strategy is to try to provide answers that would naturally be given by a man.”

He does give a benchmark of 70% accurate after five minutes of questioning, but that wasn’t success just a benchmark.

I was just going into excessive detail. My point was limitations stop following the spirit of the original.

I don’t specifically object to changing the judge from interrogation to observation of a conversation. But, it should be clear his version doesn’t have all the loopholes the modern interpretation does.