Aronian was a late bloomer. No evidence here at all.
It doesn't really matter, does it? There's a big difference between telling someone "if you're not a GM by age 14 [but actually I mean 15], then don't bother, it's hopeless" and "a typical top-level player reaches GM by age 14, but it is possible to reach that level even if you are a relatively 'late bloomer'." I'd prefer not to err on the side of telling people not to try.
Well, it's a report about cheating which is essentially claiming that if you're not a GM by age 14, then you must be cheating. Which is...kind of the same thing.
The conclusion of their report is repeated several times; no evidence of OTB cheating.
I don't think any serious commenters are going to complain about the absence of stereotypes about "the greats" unbacked by statistical analysis. That is what is bad. The actual analysis of anomalously fast progress at equivalent ages is fine.
It's literally the single most important fact in this context.
If there are lots of people like Aronian, then there's nothing out of the ordinary about the evolution of Hans Neiman as a player. If he's a rare and unusual example, he shouldn't be cited to suggest Hans' skill growth is within the norm.
>I'd prefer not to err on the side of telling people not to try.
This is a non-sequitur.
Almost by definition the exception disproves the rule.
There’s literally no logical sense in which the exception can prove the rule unless the rule is not really a rule but more of a suggestion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
It honestly doesn't bother me as much as when people incorrectly say "begs the question" when they mean "raises the question" but I think we're long past the point of us ever correcting any of these.