I think a player who is a novice and starts playing chess at age 44 CAN
achieve at 2000 OTB rating.
My reasoning is that there exists much book help and electronic internet help and computer playing machines which also instruct which are sufficient for that player to learn very fast
I just bought chess king and it has a very good instructional base and even with that product alone can a 44 year old learn a lot.
And then there are people who come on the forum and throw in:
"novice to 2000 is doable in just 4 months if you try"
Or some other absurd crap. I mean, it's great your GM buddy / world youth champ / historical player did it, but that's off topic.
We are a little all over the place to define what this 44 year old player would have to achieve? A rating of 2000 USCF or 2200 USCF or what?
I am fairly sure such a player could reach 2000 USCF with all the opportunities for learning and improving your chess available today.
In fact I think such a person could get to 2200 USCF - USCF master if he has a natural ability for chess.
At age. 44 we have lost some of our mental abilities but not that much.
To say that anyone of normal intelligence can become a master, or 2000 is just silly. There's no evidence for that sort of claim at all. Anyone can become 1200 USCF? Yeah, probably with a little help and work. But there's no data to support a claim of any rating much higher than that simply because counter-factuals start to abound.
no it's not. it's more or the less the truth.
I'm a member of a very active chess club. We have events pretty much every day of the week. There are more than a few middle-aged folks who play in one or more of those events and have done so religiously for years. They take out books from our extensive library. They meet with higher rated oppoenents to go over their games. They play on-line. They watch videos. They are consumed by chess and they are not yet class-B players let alone 2000.
I'm sorry, but the reality is simple, reaching 2000 puts one in very elite company among active tournament players. Doing so is certainly partly about hard work, but it's also a bit about having the right aptitudes. And hte later in life you start the less likely it becomes that any particular individual will achieve that goal.
I am not saying no one can do it. I am saying that it is folly to presume a specific individual can do it. The vast, vast majority of people who take chess seriously never break 1600 let alone 2000.
Especially to say someone could make 1900 from novice in 6 months. Child prodigies with GM training don't do that, the poker player didn't get close in a year.
I don't say anyone can make 1900 from novice in 6 months but I do have the opinion that someone with natural chess ability and age 44 can go from not knowing the moves to 2000 USCF in maybe 4 years and maybe 2200 USCF in another couple of years.
It may have not been done before because it is seldom that a 44 year old is just taking up chess. I have seen young people ages 8-18 take up chess and progress at a rapid pace and just because an older person has maybe 90% power of a young player--does not mean the older play cannot progress almost as well.
There are a lot of things in chess that have never been done before and then someone does them.
You didn't, kenpo did.
Why would a 44 year old person take up chess? And even if he takes up chess, why would he want to aim for 2000 uscf? Its a bit unrealistic but possible. But what are the chances?
people have huge potential and if unleashed , can archive greatness.
but usually the factor nature has the last word
The chances of a 44 year old taking up chess are not good at all.
But assuming there is a 44 year old who wants to take up chess and wants to devote the time and energy--then there is a fair chance for progress as I suggested [but I know most do not agree]
I think there are many players who are stuck at some rating [say 1600] who could learn to play better and increase their rating with the correct instruction.
Why would a 44 year old person take up chess? And even if he takes up chess, why would he want to aim for 2000 uscf? Its a bit unrealistic but possible. But what are the chances?
Extremely low.
Most players play their whole career without crossing the 1600 barrier. Of those that do, they overwhelmingly are players who started early in life and showed a certain level of affinity for the game.
All the "we just have to work harder" stuff sounds great, but it simply ignores reality.
The reality is this:
The average active tournament player will not make a rating of 2000 regardless of at what age they start this activity.
Starting activities like music, language, chess and others where pattern recognition is valuable and where performance trumps knowledge later in life is a serious barrier to proficiency due to reduced neuro-plasticity as we age.
The number of players who work hard at chess and who do not come anywhere close to 2000 far exceeds the number who work hard and do exceed 2000.
It is true that those who exceed 2000 tend to work hard at chess. Very few get to that rating on sheer natural aptitude sans hard work.
It is a gross misapplication of logic to reason that the average 2000+ rated player is just an average guy who works hard, so therefore any average guy who works hard can get there too.
A 44 year old should be mature enough to realize the pointlessness of being a GM and put his time towards something of value.
@kenpo : I'm going to be blunt too, but I don't think someone starting chess at 44 can achieve a 2000 OTB rating.
I agree with IM Andrew Martin that he wouldn't have enough energy...
I'll be more blunt. if the 44 year old is in good shape, "energy" would not be the issue. if he possessed an average iq, a million dollars and a private trainer he could well do it. and probably in much less than 10 years as well.
what he wouldn't be able to do is become an FM, IM or GM.
it would interesting to see how far someone with an iq of say 130-140 could go under the same conditions starting at 44. I'd bet they'd make IM in 10 years.
I don't know if you've ever been to an OTB tournament, an open one, and talked to people in their 40's there. If you do, ask them how they feel like playing against youngsters, and what happens after 3-4 hrs of play ?
Now, the millionaire hypothesis is interesting : we have the example of this poker player to follow. Though he is much younger (he started in his early 30's if I understood correctly), I'm interested to see how far he goes, as that would be a good estimate of what a beginner adult can realistically aim for.
And you have obviously no idea what it takes to be an IM...
The chances of a 44 year old taking up chess are not good at all.
But assuming there is a 44 year old who wants to take up chess and wants to devote the time and energy--then there is a fair chance for progress as I suggested [but I know most do not agree]
I think there are many players who are stuck at some rating [say 1600] who could learn to play better and increase their rating with the correct instruction.
Just want to point out that there is a difference between chess knowledge (understanding of the game) and chess skill (that is -actually- being able to perform well).
All these instructive tools can help develop your knowledge - and your skills to some extent if you know how to use them, but the main source of learning is to play games in real tournaments, something which takes time and can't be emulated in front of a computer screen.
Why, because you need to have these experiences to learn when and how to use your energy during a chess game, what is important and what is not, and even become aware of your natural reaction in various situations and how it affects your thought process. All of this comes with experience, and, of course, the earlier you get this experience, the easier you can adjust to any situation on the chess board.
I think it's difficult for an adult to have the same level of emotional involvment than a child during a real game, which means that the 'lesson' from this game won't be collected as easily, and it will take much more time to 'digest' the lesson.
Also the acquisition of 'basic' knowledge (patterns) is much more difficult as an adult, which is a big big hurdle to overcome...
A 44 year old should be mature enough to realize the pointlessness of being a GM and put his time towards something of value.
True, and there's something to be said for just enjoying chess without being obsessed by ratings and performance, which can be very frustrating...
We have a young 83 guy who joined our chess club last year. He probably won't ever get a big rating, and most of his games will be decided by blunders, yet he is happy to play, and can appreciate something beautiful happening on the chess board, even if it's something he can't replicate himself 
And you have obviously no idea what it takes to be an IM...
There is no evidence that high general intelligence correlates to chess performance beyond the first standard deviation above the median. This is likely not a direct effect but rather reflects that at that same level there are neurobiological structural differences that happen which sometimes, but not always, seem to impact IQ performance.
It's a common mistake to assume chess relates to general intelligence. But there is no evidence for it.
It stands to reason that chess players as a group are somewhat more intelligent than "average" [100 IQ]
I saw this posted somewhere. BCF is British rating system?
BCF = (1.25 x IQ + 50
Elo= 8 x BCF + 600
If I have this wrong please someone correct me [and I am not saying the equations are valid]
Sorry should be 8/10 of BCM not 8 times so a person of average IQ of 100
would per that equation have 1.25 x 100 + 50 or 175 BCF
in Elo 8 times 175 = 1400 plus 600 = 2000 Elo?
Not sure this make sense--are they trying to say the highest elo for an average IQ person is 2000?
His chess.com ratings seem low for someone at 1920?