But what's the difference between #2 and #9 nowadays?
High rated players who will be forgotten and disappear without trace
Sort:
watcha wrote:
However there is an other kind of player who appears on this list. The ones who in their career make an extremely high rating, even make it no world No. 2. yet never achieve anything that would make them remembered in chess history.
The average person does not "remember" Lasker or Botvinnik either, so I assume their careers deserve no respect.
Do you realise how pathetic it is for a player rated 1663 in blitz to go out of his/her way to denigrate the achievements of players s/he can only dream of matching?
If you look at the all time high rating tables it is littered with world champions.
However there is an other kind of player who appears on this list. The ones who in their career make an extremely high rating, even make it no world No. 2. yet never achieve anything that would make them remembered in chess history.
Typical such players are Aronian, Grischuk, I hesitate with Nakamura, but he also may end up in this category.
Not that they never become world champions but can not even play a world championship match. Even the losers in WC matches are remembered, but what will the players remembered for who don't even make it to such a match.
Now Aronian is enjoying a rebound. We have to be happy that he is again world No. 9. But for godness sake he was world No. 2. and even then he did not achieve anything memorable.
These players are good examples of the fact that shear knowledge and playing ability no matter how high does not make one a great player.
You need some plus and these players are missing this plus.