Sorry, I don't get a question. By definition Garry should score highter than Deep Blue, because Deep Blue never takes IQ test?

The argument made in the article is that “Is Albert Einstein smarter than a toddler?” means things like "Einstein can do arithmetic better than the toddler".

But this only makes sense because the toddler and Einstein are similar systems doing the same fundamental things when they do arithmetic. We would accept that "Einstein plays chess better than a toddler" is an indication that Einstein is more intelligent, but would we accept the same from Deep Blue? If not, why not?

The whole point is that intelligence is a concept that points at a bundle of related characteristics. There is one indication that Deep blue is more intelligent than a toddler - it can beat the toddler at a game of chess. There are other indications that a toddler is more intelligent than deep blue - they could write better poetry, play tic-tac-toe better, play checkers better, play, well, literally _any_ other game better, do arithmetic better, etc.

So on one metric DB is more intelligent. On every other metric the toddler is more intelligent.

Is it actually an indication that Deep Blue is more intelligent, or does it turn out that Deep Blue is succeeding at chess by means other than intelligence?