So, I took up a new course (AI) in my uni and came across these two test $TURING$ $TEST$ and $CHINESE$ $ROOM$ $TEST$. But I am not able to understand is the Chinese room test really accurate? Does it really dis-approve the TURING test?
The Turing test and Searle's Chinese Room argument represent two alternative definitions of intelligence.
The Turing test is based on the assumption that intelligence is difficult to formally define but can be easily recognised by behavior. So if a computer program behaves and interacts in a way that is practically indistinguishable from the behavior of human being (who we assume is "intelligent") then, based on this assumption, we should say that the computer program is also intelligent. In the Turing test, the particular behavior that is tested is holding a conversation in natural language.
Searle's Chinese Room argument is a challenge to the validity of the Turing test. It posits a complex system that behaves as if it were intelligent (in this case, holding a conversation in Chinese), but in which each component of the system follows an algorithm, and so no part of the system can be said to "understand" Chinese. The Chinese Room argument is based on the assumption that the system as a whole cannot be said to be intelligent unless some of its individual components are intelligent - it is essentially a reductionist argument.
In summary, the Chinese Room argument says that its is possible for a system to simulate intelligence without actually being intelligent. Whereas the Turing test is says that if a system can simulate intelligence then it actually is intelligent.
We can illustrate the difference between the two points of view with an analogy as follows. The Turing test would say that an aeroplane flies because it travels through the air from one place to another - it exhibits "flying" behavior. The Chinese room argument would say that an aeroplane only simulates flight because it does not flap its wings.