My old chess coach played his first tournament ever at age 25, got a rating of 1100, and became a NM at age 32. I think you can improve a lot in your 20's (even if its harder than in your teens because of work, family comittments, etc.) , but once you hit middle age it gets harder because your brain isn't as pliable.
Untill what age can you make it big in chess?
Sort:
the right answer is that nobody knows.
Life gets in the way with chess improvement as an adult. this is enough of a factor that the kids and adults don't stand on equal ground...
so you simply can't be sure what the average adult could accomplish if they had no distractions.
what you can be sure of, is that if it has never been done; its surely all but impossible. that why its easy to say "no" to many adults how ask on the forum, "can I become a gm?"
43 years, 5 months, 3 days, and 6.3 hours. After that you will not be able to learn a single thing more.
yeah. maybe. who knows right?
I feel the plastic leaving my brain right now. from here on out--- it will be slow, dense and unlucky to improve....
I predict none of you will be masters: so there! 
I read a study that said chess players peak at around 40.
Jan 26, 2017
0
#10
ben finegold made it big ie. became GM at 40 (IM at 20). of course he was already big to start with ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Finegold
I knew a guy who started to learn chess at 69 yrs old. Then he died. You can't get much bigger than that. 
Jan 26, 2017
0
#13
Diakonia escribió:
I read a study that said chess players peak at around 40.
Kasparov peaked around that age. 43 I think. I may be wrong.
Gart_Arfunkel wrote:
Why would someone assume that there is an age where a person stops improving as a chess player, or anything else. Most people start their careers at around 25, not end them. To suggest that people stop improving after a certain age is, in my opinion, ageism.
That is the reality for 2k+ players that on average significant time investment in chess after the age of 30 is likely not to get to better ratings. Say, a person might remain for years at the same 2200 level despite he works his ass off. And the higher the rating the more chances that no amount of work is going to make you into a better chess player.
It sounds not credible to the players that play at the beginning levels (like 1800 or less), but the truth is that the majority of serious players virtually cannot improve, no matter how hard they train.
stuzzicadenti wrote:
I think it depends on the individual. Some people peak early (e.g., Ponomariov never reached his high performance at age 22 upon winning the FIDE championship which was disputed because it was separate from Kramnik's "classical" title at the time, and Leko who didn't manage to regain the former glory he achieved at age 25 as a world championship challenger and very nearly becoming champion - which no doubt affected his confidence for years afterward).
Some players, like Anand, Kramnik, and Ivanchuk, are still playing the highest quality of chess in their entire careers at 40+. They were the top players in the world during the 1990s (along with Kasparov, of course) and continue to have the energy and motivation to do well. Whether they are improving or have stagnated in ability is an interesting discussion because no doubt their minds are not as sharp and alert now as in their young days, but they have vast amount of experience which probably helps overcome that. Also there is the debate about ratings inflation (e.g., perhaps they are actually playing at the same level or slightly worse as they did 20 years ago, but their ratings are at all-time highs because ratings of all the top players have gradually increased, etc.)
The improvement of the top chessplayers in absolute terms is very small. Their ratings fluctuate in the range of tens or rating points. Noone has improved for hundreds of rating points. Despite them investing thousands of hours into the game.
The idea, that once a player reaches a certain ability level, that it's very difficult to make significant improvement, regardless of effort, is probably valid.
The question of how age relates to this is more unclear. Rather than age, a bigger factor might be max potential ability level or say rating.
If one reaches close to their max at a young age say 16, is that any different than reaching it at 26? I mean obviously the potential is there for the younger. More chance for more experience, less life distractions, but its no guarantee that he or she has the ability to get significantly better. There certainly has to be plenty of teens who, for whatever reasons, aren't going to significantly improve their chess.
Could it be that the younger Giri or Wei are as relatively stuck at their level as much as Carlsen or Karjakin might be?
AnnChess2 wrote:
With people training and playing chess until old age all over the globe, what is the age until you can realistically improve significantly as a chess player?
I would say that a lot is decided on 15-19 year of age interval for most players, and after 25 big improvement is unlikely.
For 2000+ rated players after the age of 25 many hours invested in chess don't improve playing strength,it rather keeps the level at the same place.
Actually I am over 25, and have made a huge 293 point improvement in my blitz rating since December 5th. Very impressive I know, so I just want to say that improvement after 25 is possible.
Jan 26, 2017
0
#18
Several people have earned IM or even GM titles after the age of 50. It's rare, but it happens. So it appears that improvement is possible as long as you're still breathing.
If someone is aiming for the very top... say, a place among the top ten in the world... then they had better have earned a title by the time they are in their teens. I'm not aware of any "top ten" player who started later than that.
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
AnnChess2 wrote:
With people training and playing chess until old age all over the globe, what is the age until you can realistically improve significantly as a chess player?
I would say that a lot is decided on 15-19 year of age interval for most players, and after 25 big improvement is unlikely.
For 2000+ rated players after the age of 25 many hours invested in chess don't improve playing strength,it rather keeps the level at the same place.
Actually I am over 25, and have made a huge 293 point improvement in my blitz rating since December 5th. Very impressive I know, so I just want to say that improvement after 25 is possible.
I am not discussing progress for the beginners, but rather progress for 2k+ players. Which is entirely different and works out entirely differently.
AnnChess2 wrote:
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
AnnChess2 wrote:
With people training and playing chess until old age all over the globe, what is the age until you can realistically improve significantly as a chess player?
I would say that a lot is decided on 15-19 year of age interval for most players, and after 25 big improvement is unlikely.
For 2000+ rated players after the age of 25 many hours invested in chess don't improve playing strength,it rather keeps the level at the same place.
Actually I am over 25, and have made a huge 293 point improvement in my blitz rating since December 5th. Very impressive I know, so I just want to say that improvement after 25 is possible.
I am not discussing progress for the beginners, but rather progress for 2k+ players. Which is entirely different and works out entirely differently.
I beg your pardon. I will not stand being called a beginner.
With people training and playing chess until old age all over the globe, what is the age until you can realistically improve significantly as a chess player?
I would say that a lot is decided on 15-19 year of age interval for most players, and after 25 big improvement is unlikely.
For 2000+ rated players after the age of 25 many hours invested in chess don't improve playing strength,it rather keeps the level at the same place.