who is more clever kasparov or einstein

Einstien. It's not even a contest. He created something that changed the course of scientific inquiry. It was a really original theory. Chess players can only hope to come close to mastery of a beautiful, incredibly complicated game.

Neither, they could not beat one another in their respective specialty. 

Einstein would move his knights diagonally and justify it under relativity theory.

Kasparov will say the White Queen is equally massive as the Black Queen of the same chessboard whatever the conditions may be.

Einstein will say you're just another Newton. Go read my theories!

Einstein will claim he didn't really lose on time. His clock was going faster than his opponent's.

@madhacker no einstein would not claim that because for time to run differently the clocks need to move with respect to each other chess clocks don't do this.

The question is hardly worth asking since it only depends on what you really mean by clever. However Einsteins accomplishments are immense while kasparov has barely any to show.

Einstein will say his opponent's clock was slower because his opponent moved at the speed of light.

He would say he accelerated his piece so fast it got too massive to move so he lost on time. :)

Actually, a Korean 4-year-old, as well as his two sisters. They were geniuses, but didn't live long. They died over a decade ago.

according to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-Yong
has a certified IQ of 210. wiki doesn't mention anything about he being dead so I guess he is still alive. he is in the Guinness World Records

Some people actually think that everyone is born with an IQ. I say that is wrong. Einstein, and I am not saying he is dumb, he is a genius of course, couldn't even remember his phone number, address, how to tie his shoes, and a lot of other things. But he still discovered that energy is convertible to mass. How did he figure that out? There were thousands of other physicists working in their labs, doing their experiments, while Einstein was working at a patent office. 

For many, many years now, psychologists and other IQ supporters have been taking IQ tests, distributing IQ tests, and comparing their IQ scores with their peers, thinking that it meant that they were smarter than others. But that's wrong. The IQ test does not measure intelligence, it is a socially constructed concept that attempted a method of measuring intelligence. The thing is, it cannot be done. Everyone is smart in their own way, no one is completely over-superiorly smarter than another.

As example take a person with 200 IQ and put him in a room. So let's say this person with 200 IQ does not know how to play the piano, do you expect him to be able to play Bach's Toccatta and Fugue in D minor instanly, by just looking at the music sheet? I think not. 

Do you expect him to learn any faster than a person with 100 IQ? A lot of people would say yes to this question, but it really depends on whichever one knows the strategy to improve. The person with 100 IQ might be able to play 20 other instruments excellently, and is considered a prodigy since he's only 15, but, given the IQ test, he doesn't know much about words or math or history, and therefore got a low score on it. This 15 year old kid isn't considered an idiot or average, he would be a lot faster in picking up the notes, since he can most likely play by ear, while the 200 IQ man does nothing with his life.

"Couldn't remember how to tie his shoes" etc. That's bull shit. A total myth.

You say that as though the question of nature vs. nurture is definitively settled.

As usual, and once again, what you present as "fact" is simply pulled out of your pre-existing biases.  It's never more clear than when you slap a label you feel is derogatory on it, like "neomarxist claptrap" or "feminist lapdog" or "liberal".

Its true. Some were imbued with oodles of charm, while others...

Take a look at Howard Gardeners Multiple intelligence theory. It outlines 9 distinct intelligence types.

The main problem is, creativity isn't considered the same as intelligence. That is wrong, creativity is also intelligence. School sometimes kills so much of our kid's creativitiy these days that most adults completely separate the two categories. 

Getting the highest IQ in the world will lieterally gain you no useful skills in life. IQ scores can be improved, with study and practce, but that certainly doesn't mean you are any smarter than anyone else. You might know how to do some math problems, but if you don't even know how to socialize with your peers, then what's the point?

"The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured." Alfred Binet (Creator of the IQ Tests), 1905

Yes, IQ is a pretty myopic view of actual intelligence and all of its facets.

As I mentioned before Howard Gardner concurs with your view, acedemic intelligence is only one facet that has been unfortunately given too much emphasis due in part to the class system in the past.