There was an experiment I saw before where a chess board was displayed with pieces positioned in some pattern (like in some random chess game) to both normal chess players and grandmasters, and they were asked to recall their positions later. As you may guess, the masters did it perfectly and every time, whereas average players scored average.

However, the experimenters repeated the experiment with a positioning pattern that could never occur in a real chess game. Guess what, both grandmasters and normal players scored the same, "Average".

This shows that, even chess masters who can recall any game or piece positions in a game they played with enormous precision, score the same as any person in memory tests. Which only indicates that their good memory is not transmittable to other fields, and that calling someone an expert without specifying the expertise, is just a fallacy that our society feeds on. You can't even obtain a skill in one field, and claim with certainty that you can apply it as an elite in other fields, even the most basic ones like memory.

Nevertheless, I don't think this is always true because the skills and knowledge you gain in one branch of science might be helpful for other branches. Especially in Mathematics, where this helped many mathematicians prove major theorems using prior concepts and theorems in other maths' branches.