Is Ivanchuk a genius?

Vassily Ivanchuk was never able to become World Champion, the best he's been able to do is be the No. 2 in 2007 and 2011. Some people say that these results don't matter and that he can still be considered a genius. I read the article below and thought it be interesting to see what people on this site would say?

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/is-ivanchuk-a-genius

I like to think of Ivanchuk as being a genius. 

I don't think world ranking in terms of rating is comparable with being world champion. A player who is never rated #1 but maintains the world champion title for a couple of cycles is IMO clearly better than someone who is ranked #1 for quite some time but never becomes world champion, as the former has demonstrated the ability to play well when it matters the most.

That said, whether or not a player is a "genius" doesn't necessarily have to do with either world champion status or rating, so... I guess you can make your own call.

I don't know.  If you rub his lamp, do you get 3 wishes?

Being the number 1 on the rating list (while regularly playing in top events and not just in a world championship 12-game match) means you are the strongest player on planet earth.

Nah, he's just a nutty pro chesser.

Oh what a feeling! When you're chessing on the ceiling!

I disagree. You can get rating points by consistently beating weaker players. To become world champion you have to win the Candidates' Tournament against some of the strongest players in the world, and then unseat the reigning World Champion.

I don't consider the word "genius" as a legitimate or useful term, especially when used for something like chess performance. If you said someone like Stephen Fry is a genius I would consider that much more credible, but I still don't like the term.   

World Championship is superior to #1 in all sports.

it doesn't matter which is preferable to you, 

to the players thats better which gives much better ammo ($)

I saw that. Just because you regularly play in top events doesn't necessarily mean that's where you get your rating points. You could do poorly in a top tournament, and then make up for the rating points lost with a great performance against weaker opponents.

Also, the Candidates' Tournament and WCC are, in my book, ranked a tier above all other top events due to their special significance.

On the other hand, if you're talking about a player who is consistently the highest-rated player, who wins top tournaments regularly, and who has won the Candidates' at least once, then I might consider that player the best in the world, depending on how bad the World Champion is (for a world champion).