Would you honestly argue that Polgar stands a chance against Carlsen as of now?
Polgar had a few victories against the top players, but these were rarities. She lost very often to the top ten players.
Kosteniuk is another strong WGM, but she has trouble against players over 2700.
It just seems like men are better developed for chess.
In her prime, Polgar might have been a tough match for Carlsen. But it's unlikely she'll ever reach that level again.
no way see what carlsen did to anand!!!
I think that if you want to think about your analysis you should think about this notion that Gaussian distributions are appropriate for modelling the abilities of the self-selected very best in a group. The fact is that FIDE ratings are given only to people who are seriously good chessplayers (top 0.01% of the population). In what distribution can we extract the top 0.01% of the population and expect that to be Gaussian? (Ans: Only some very odd mixture distribution).
It would be true only under the (wrong) assumption that the Elo ratings of the population we currently measure (top 0.01%, though I doubt that number) were the same at least in shape that if we measured the full population.
This is not true, because one's Elo rating is relative to the others' - said otherwise, for rating purposes, the sample population (top 0.01%) is competing only with themselves.
When you look at the OP's graph (#1), it looks much more gaussian than tail-of-gaussian.