Chess vs IQ

No. Show me a reliable source saying that Einstein took the WAIS.

I've seen tests where the average of an adult was 110, and others where it was 100.

according to Albert Einstein's biography, "He did the WAIS-IV, the IQ test most commonly used today.

Which biography?

That hasn't been complied by geniuses, then. A lot of people with IQs around 130 to 135 think they're really bright but it's a big fish, small pond thing, so they think they're really bright and they latch onto the idea that genius starts at 140, which has, I suppose, been propagated by egalitarians!

The thing is, just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Of course, I'm included. The World is full of people making claims and trying to stake out some territory on a "professional" basis. You should be sceptical, especially when the claims really defy common sense. 140 is simply too common an IQ level to be "genius", which is reserved for something much more special. I'm even talking about a different way of thinking. Much faster, much more accurate. Imagine a person who can work something out in three minutes using sparse evidence that it might take a team of scientists three years to discover. That's what genius is. Not the plodding efforts of the scientists, who will have IQs most probably in the 130 to 145 range.

What you're referring to when you say that he "held back progress in physics" is when he argued against quantum theory. This doesn't make him any less of a genius. The reason he argued against quantum theory was because it had an aspect of complete randomness which makes no logical sense, and the fact that for quantum theory to be true, it would mean that some objects would be able to travel faster than light speed. Again, this doesn't make him any less of a super-genius. Of course he argued against something that was completely illogical in theory, I think almost anyone in his situation, even by your standards of what a genius is, would probably argue against it. 

Also, QM is not illogical. It may seem that way in our everyday lives govered by Newton mechanics, but QM is logically consistent with the microscopic world. The reason we don’t see quantum effects in our normal world is because all the probabilities in QM average out. Now, there’s the issue of quantum gravity, but that’s M-theory realm.

I'm arguing for a meaningful definition of genius rather than a fake one put in place by people who don't understand the subject. You can have a go at defining it too, if you want.

You speak of real psychology. There's no such thing because it isn't an empirical science. So your main premise is a non-starter. I mentioned my wife. The one who sat a Mensa IQ test and came out at 156. Well, she's a psychologist. She holds a Master's degree. She thinks there are a lot of rather incompetent psychologists. There is certainly not one view which has to stand. That's rather authoritarian, don't you think?

Oh, and my wife certainly wouldn't think she's a genius. She's just intelligent and competent at what she does.

You speak of real psychology. There's no such thing because it isn't an empirical science. So your main premise is a non-starter. I mentioned my wife. The one who sat a Mensa IQ test and came out at 156. Well, she's a psychologist. She holds a Master's degree. She thinks there are a lot of rather incompetent psychologists. There is certainly not one view which has to stand. That's rather authoritarian, don't you think?

Oh, and my wife certainly wouldn't think she's a genius. She's just intelligent and competent at what she does.

That hasn't been complied by geniuses, then. A lot of people with IQs around 130 to 135 think they're really bright but it's a big fish, small pond thing, so they think they're really bright and they latch onto the idea that genius starts at 140, which has, I suppose, been propagated by egalitarians!

The thing is, just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Of course, I'm included. The World is full of people making claims and trying to stake out some territory on a "professional" basis. You should be sceptical, especially when the claims really defy common sense. 140 is simply too common an IQ level to be "genius", which is reserved for something much more special. I'm even talking about a different way of thinking. Much faster, much more accurate. Imagine a person who can work something out in three minutes using sparse evidence that it might take a team of scientists three years to discover. That's what genius is. Not the plodding efforts of the scientists, who will have IQs most probably in the 130 to 145 range.

ELO=IQ x 10...

Many prominent phycologists, such as the professor Jordan Peterson, have stated that if you have an IQ of 140 - 145, you can be the best or most prominent individual in your entire field>>

Yeah, that's quite true. Being prominent in a professional field would require basic intelligence but there are many other factors in play. Willingness to learn and to work, interpersonal skills, memory .... all sorts of things are required, tied together with intellectual skills or ability. I knew a pathologist who fitted that bill before he died early from cancer. He wasn't a genius .... he was clever. My father was considered foremost in his own field. He was a quantity surveyor. Prominent people in their fields aren't necessarily geniuses. My grandfather was thought of as an excellent fitter and my wife's father was a sheet metal worker. 20 years before I met my wife I was interested in train spotting. I was invited aboard a Napier Deltic and shown the engine room by the driver. Rather thrilling because of the high pitched whine the Deltic makes as the revs increase. The driver pointed to some ducting and cowling on the exhaust and maybe the intake. He told me this engine was a prototype and somewhere, down near Manchester, there was a genius who had put it together without any drawings. That turned out to be my wife's dad.