The point, which you appear to have missed, is that Robson is at Webster on a chess scholarship - just as Stanford is a ‘football school’ for aspiring professional football players and Duke a ‘basketball school.’ Yes, Texas Tech was/is a ‘chess school’ (as is UT-Dallas), as is Webster. None of those schools are ‘diploma mills’ nor did I suggest they were.
Moderator Mode: Off
In all honesty all of you must admit that I would need to be on the team for it to be perfect… 
Rating and playing strength really don’t matter. If I was on one of those boards, I would play the Bishop’s Opening, a la Soltis or even the Polish as White and that would really stun my opponents.
As Black, I’m thinking something like the Hippopotamus or the Creepy Crawly Defense.
I would be assured to be a real winner…
In fact, when we played Russia, I bet they would feel the need to put Kramnik on my board, against me…
@ Ron Suarez
CL Headlines: “Optimistic Optomotrist Obstanantly Opts Olympiad Opportunity!”
I was just about to reconsider Nakamura, but he wouldn’t return my tweets. So, if Randy approves, you’re hired.
My Perfect Team (adjusted)
-
Hess
-
Shankland
-
Robson
-
Arnold
-
Holt
-
Suarez*
- will play any board on players’ rest days
I predict he will not lose a game because Coach Nakamura won’t let him play.
If GM Caruana comes back, he’s my new 1st board.
Are you kidding me? Elections are won on “gotchas” in the media these days, and Nakamura is probably good for at least one “gotcha” quote every day!!! 
Adjustments to MY PERFECT TEAM:
Suarez is now off the team. His demand of an honorarium of $50
was considered excessive by the EB. 
Coach Nakamura resigns as coach. “You can carry a team just so long” he tweeted.
My prediction is that this team, now or two years from now, would finish in the middle of the pack. Like it or not, the top teams in the last Olympiad (or just about any Olympiad for that matter) have at least one - and preferably two - players who are considered top echelon players in the world. This team does not have that - in fact, I’m struggling to find even one big international win for any of them. Given that your first board also seems more inclined to focus on a career on Wall Street . . . this team doesn’t seem to have much of a chance against the heavyweights of international chess - they’d probably be fortunate to score 1.5 in most of those matches.
Maybe that is your idea of fantasy, but painfulreality sounds closer to the mark. Me, I’ll take Nakamura and Kamsky on the top two boards and play your fantasy team any day of the week - and I’d even let you have all your players. I’ll figure out who else to stick on third and fourth board confident that I’m probably getting 1.5 points (at least) on the top two boards.
Some people are into the pain thing, Randy. 
Generally, those most into it run for the Executive Board. 
(I believe) I understand the motivation behind this post - and if my understanding is correct, I have sympathy in that direction. However, I respectfully submit that there is at least some humorous aspect to the “perfect team” discussion, especially in the post that spawned Mr. Bauer’s response. Perhaps we could all stand to climb off our horses and lower our bayonets from time to time.
And there they become a pain north and south.
Two years is a long time for the players on your “perfect” team. They could gain 100+ FIDE points in strength and become part of the elite. They could just as easily find girl friends, careers, or other interests that will take up their time with chess going to the back burner. Remember that Josh Waitskin gave up competitive chess for the martial arts. The young titans on your list have displayed a remarkable degree of sensibility and practicality rather than obsession. They may be too normal and decide to use their talents for other things besides chess. Girl friends usually result in about a 100 or more point drop in rating. 
Bad girl friends can drop you to your floor. 