 Why would a psychologist be a better programmer than a scientist in response to the WBM having picked a psychologist over a scientist for a programming job?
Silently, so as not to shock anyone with illusions about well dressed young women, Sandra Lea Grayling cursed the day she had persuaded the Chicago Space Mirror that there would be all sorts of human interest stories to be picked up at the first international grandmaster chess tournament in which an electronic computing machine was entered. The Machine is probably programmed to recognize such situations and do something of the same sort, though we can't be sure from the information World Business Machines has released. The first practical model, reported by Bernstein and Roberts of IBM in 1958 and which looked four moves ahead, was programmed so that it had a greedy worried tendency to grab at enemy pieces and to retreat its own whenever they were attacked.
 A psychologist could better predict a person's thinking during a chess game than a scientist could.
 A psychologist would know how to program a chess game to avoid cheating.  A psychologist can easily learn programming and has the background to be more effective at it than a scientist.  A psychologist knows the rules of chess more than a scientist does.  A psychologist could better predict a person's thinking during a chess game than a scientist could.