You don't find so many chances to tell such a clean cliche.
If You Could Pick One 2700+ Player to Be Your Coach

Peter Svidler is a smooth talker, a bit like George Clooney, but as soon as you open your mouth to say something, he will belt out another paragraph, so don't expect to get in a word edgewise.
I'll take Nepo any day.
Are you saying you would like Svidler to teach you because you are attracted to him (you are comparing him to George Clooney - loved by most women)? lol

I agree the best teachers are most likely under 2700 with lots of teaching experience. The question was 2700+ though. Can they be dead?
I like Karpov, but thinks theory has changed since he played. For example, the way he played the Caro-Kann has changed.
I think Kramnik or Anand. Magnus can't teach me what he does...it's just his brain. That can't be taught. He will tell me I should be able to open with 1.a3 and beat anyone.
In that chess personality test going around, I scored most like Kramnik in style.
Kasparov too, but I seem to prefer Kramnik's opening style. Can I have two teachers? Kasparov and Kramnik then.

Great players aren't necessarily great coaches. Personally, if I had to choose between learning from the prize fighter and learning from his or her trainer, I'm going to go with the latter.
While I think the whole 'those who can, do. . . ' line of thinking is overly simplistic and vaguely insulting - there are plenty of people who can't play and cannot teach, for instance - I also don't believe that many high level competitors in any sport or game have the skills to be good teachers. A lot of it has to do with the fact that a combination of natural talent and intense training has caused the elite competitor to approach the game in a way that most of us cannot fathom. It's hard to translate the game they play into something the rest of us can truly fathom. So give me an elite coach anyday. I'd learn more about the game that way.
None.
Those who can, do.
Those who cant, teach.
So all those world champions, who had access to the best trainers, were wasting their time?
So why arent those best trainers making a run for the world title?
they have successful methods that work, but they themselves cannot apply it.
Peter Svidler, he knows his stuff and more importantly, communicates well.
This I do agree with, I had forgotten about Svidler.
I could not disagree more about Hikaru being a good teacher. He seems like the type that is quite amazing in his mental ability but would not be able to help someone else gain that ability. Almost like a kid that could dunk a basketball at 13 is not the guy you ask for advice on how to build leaping ability.
I could just see him explaining, "In this position you should clearly recklessly weaken your pawn structure because that will allow you to use your freakish inate tactical ability to outplay your simplistic opponent"

None.
Those who can, do.
Those who cant, teach.
So all those world champions, who had access to the best trainers, were wasting their time?
Those world champions have used the best teachers, but not the highest rated ones. I think Magnus have used GM Simen Agdestein, and maybe IM Torbjørn Ringdal-Hanssen and IM Torstein Bae. Now He use GM Peter Heine Nielsen a lot.
Anand have been using GM Radjabov, and Radjabov is above 2700, so if we narrow the search to above 2700, Radjabov must be very interesting.

Peter Svidler is pretty good with this kind of thing. Yasser Seirawan is 2620 but he's another obvious choice.
I think a film should be made along the following lines.
The best chess players in the world are all invited to Hans Island to play a knockout tournament to decide the world champion for a prize fund of ...... Drum roll please ..... one million dollars.
(wait ... that's 1960s).
Ok then, a prize fund of ...... one billion dollars!
the rest of the film then goes just like Enter The Dragon, except its chess not kung fu.
Nakamura is the last man standing.

Who is the blonde sitting next to Carlsen? She looks really familiar.
Mena Suvari
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mena_Suvari

None.
Those who can, do.
Those who cant, teach.
So all those world champions, who had access to the best trainers, were wasting their time?
So why arent those best trainers making a run for the world title?
they have successful methods that work, but they themselves cannot apply it.
Trainers train, players play.
For instance, ex-world champion Botvinnik:
"He retired from competitive play in 1970, aged 59, preferring instead to occupy himself with the development of programs and to assist with the training of younger Soviet players, earning him the nickname of "Patriarch of the Soviet Chess School""
(Wikipedia)
Playing and training are not identical activities.

Botzer lost all credibility though when he took advantage of Tal's booze and fags addiction.
It's a competition.
He may be thinking of pre-university level.