YOUR IQ compared to" World Chess Champion" Garry Kasparov ..

For all we may know, all those who claim IQs in excess of 160, they could be referring to some insanely high standard deviation on some esoteric scale they had devised themselves. But I highly doubt that is the case with the aforementioned case, and that he means to inform us that it is with an SD of 15. 

Statistically speaking, an outlier is 1.5 the IQR. 

For online IQ tests that will be a profoundly rough gauge of your intelligence quotient, I find that the Mensa.dk, Mensa.nor, Logica Stella and Tero41. There's additionally the SACFT but the results are highly inflated so I would advise take the advice displayed at the bottom of the test site (reduce IQ by 10 if at the higher end of spectrum), as well as taking the Flynn effect into account. Don't take the age adjustments into account; they reap bizarre results, such as the 159 I got.

Oh no. 

https://www.chess.com/member/178iq

Friend of @drmrboss

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-have-played-chess-all-my-life-and-never-lost-nor-drew-ama

Had such high hopes for this one 😬

@autobunny, i know

I took that one too but it was for adults so it was harder. Technically when I took it it didn't produce an accurate result.

True if his IQ was so high why not use it for something usefull

So Kasparov's IQ is superior to Einstein's but he wasted his life playing a game when he could have possibly discovered the key to sentient AI or cured cancer?

Check mate, society.

While IQ is general, high intellectual performance is largely specialised. Einstein probably wouldn't have been a GM even if he had not thought chess was a waste of time (although being a decent club level player). He would have just been a decent club level player.

Kasparov is a bright person, like millions of bright people across the world (not a 1 in a billion IQ person, as has been glibly claimed about him and about Fischer, without any valid justification).

He could have had another career in many fields, for sure. But there is no reason to believe he would have been world class in any more worthwhile area than chess.

Bruh, IQ doesn't mean that you can just find a cure for cancer.

Most certainly not. Einstein obliterated the creator of the atomic bomb, an obviously world renowned super genius, in only 24 moves. 

Good point. Thank you for clearing that up.

I would have thought that that would be obvious from the beginning

.......especially considering your high rating (and potentially IQ)

If this game is genuine, it was a decent win against a weak opponent. This game suggests that Oppenheimer was not a strong chess player.  (There is no allowance for leading the development of the atomic bomb in chess ratings systems). 

https://www.chess.com/a/25SSPppcv2RyPG

You can't deduce much from one win against a weak player. Einstein's play appears generally good except a rather bad move (a4) at the end of the opening. I suspect no GM would play this move but most players make errors like this all the time. In the theory games for this position, no-one has played Einstein's chosen move - which may even be losing - and both of the 2300+ players who have reached it played Nc3, also the computer's strong favourite.

Einstein played an immaculate game while masterfully employing one of the most theoretical and prominent openings, the Ruy Lopez. He was obviously a very strong player, and your argument that genius in certain areas does not necessarily correlate to chess prowess certainly pales at the face of Einstein's example.

Also I don't see on what grounds you're calling Oppenheimer a "weak player". His move was an inaccuracy, are you arguing that GMs at the top level do not make inaccurate moves? Look, a super genius will most likely also do very well in chess, let's just a agree on that.

Your claim that Einstein was merely a club level player is obviously nonsense.🤨

Well, there is ATOMIC chess

That's right.

To be clear, I am a great admirer of Einstein as a physicist and a humanitarian, indeed more so than if he had been a super-strong chess player instead.

@Elroch: You claimed that Einstein was merely a club level player, that statement was clearly false.

Stockfish 11, and any high level engine really, will indicate mistakes and inaccuracies with 90% of all high level games, that literally means nothing. Especially inaccuracy alerts can be quite dubious at times.

What have you achieved in the chess world to just boldly call a confirmed super genius a weak player, solely based on one game?🙄

I didn't say Einstein was a weak player. I said he was a significantly above average player, also that the evidence reveals play that is not of strong master level.

One of Einstein's moves turns out to be a blunder, although it is classified as one of 3 mistakes (in 16 moves) by the chess.com analysis tool.

Strong masters don't make 3 mistakes in 16 moves against a weak player.

Regarding the valid point that one game is relatively weak evidence, note that a Bayesian analysis makes this much more relevant to a claim that he was a GM level player. Fewer than 1 in a million people are grandmasters, so the burden of proof is firmly on you.