Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why do you say that its not scientific? If it can be expressed purely mathematically as chess engines of necessity must do by employing algorithms, then why is this any less scientific than other sciences? We could even invent a name for the study, chessology.
The way molecules in a stone interact can be expressed mathematically. That doesn't make a stone 'scientific'.
The theory of relativity, is a theory of space time. Spacetime itself is not scientific. Science is about how we go about studying something, not the thing itself.
Also science is about discovering patterns, not the patterns themselves, so one could even argue that E=mc^2 is not inherently scientific. Similarly, although science was used to develop cell phones, a cell phone itself is not really scientific - depending on in what sense you are using the word.
When it comes to mathematics, it is typically not considered a science in the same sense as Biology or Physics. There are no experiments in mathematics.
So, I am saying that whether or not to use the word scientific when developing a chess engine is debateable. However, using scientific to describe the way the vast majority of chess players study chess is simply out of the question.