FACT: You can't improve at chess

This is true.   All we had back in the 70's, 80's and 90's were Chess Life magazines and books (if you could afford them).   There were no free internet lessons, game analysis videos, free computer engines to analyze your games or Tactics Trainers back then.   I actually made more improvement between the ages of 45 and 55 than I did between the ages of 9 and 45, because of computers and the internet.

I learned to play prior to the computer revolution, and quit in 1982 right after the change from descriptive to algebraic notation. Literally everything I learned, changed. It’s been a difficult few months, but I bought a few books and a practice board, so hopefully I can start to see some progress. 

I made the switch, with no issues at all.  Algebraic notation came much easier to me than the old notation.   I was very good at Algebra in school, so the x-y coordinate grid was already ingrained in my memory.   I also caught on to computers fairly quickly and even wrote a few programs in Basic on my old Commodore 64.   Ahh, the good ole days.   lol   My only memory of the old notation was an opening that I learned in an old book I found at the library.   They called it The Hungarian Defense.   I played it in my very first tournament, but my opponent said it was called Philidor's Defense (1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 d6  3. d4).   I argued with him about it for several minutes.   Years later, I found out that what I played actually was Philidor's Defense and that the Hungarian Defense was: 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Bc4 Be7.   Oops.  lol   

I didn’t know the language changed. I thought I completely forgot how to read notation, so I went to work learning algebraic notation. I ran across an article talking about the change in 1980, then it all made sense. Algebraic notation isn’t hard to learn, I just thought I had forgotten it.

You aren't born with understanding the movement of the pieces, you have no idea about openings until you read about them, you don't have a natural skill that dictates checkmate patterns, forks and pins and if you never learn how to improve your positional skills you end up stuck at a certain rating.

The only thing that's true is that you won't improve just by playing.

psylowade  What you described where most players reach a plateau after several years and can't im;prove.  I have seen this also in other highly skilled games.

There is a highly skilled card game called duplicate bridge and the same thing happens.  After a few years people reach a plateau and cannot improve.  

There is a reason for this in both highly skilled games! 

People make mistakes. And they make the same mistakes over and over again. And they don't even realize this! I can guarantee this is what you are doing even though I have not even looked at even one of your games!

What is the solution?  You have to be open minded enough to find the mistakes you are making over and over again!  You cannot do this on your own.  You need to find a very highly skilled player to look at your games to discover the mistakes you make often.

Make a list of these mistakes.  Play some chess at the rate of about 30 minutes for each side for the game [or slower]   Then if you are open minded and put effort in corrercting your mistakes---in one year you will probably gain the skill of 200 to 300 EXTRA rating points.

Very true. You need to read books, analyze games, train your mind through puzzles, and a plethora of other activities to encourage growth in the game. 

Also, impressive win streak, Gimfain. 

Or to put it in a different way: Every chessplayer experiences SOMETHING better as he learns more about chess.

It's all about internalising chess understanding, and pattern recognition. It will certainly take longer for us adults - than for kids - but if we have a good brain for languages and mathematics, we will certainly have a good brain for chess too.

Chess improvement takes a lot of studying. Not playing, but studying.

But most players would rather play, play, play than sit down and do the gritty work. This is why you see a lot of players who seem to hit a wall.

It's not that they've reached a point where no more improvement can be found; it's just that they aren't taking the proper steps toward improving their game.

I started reading chess books from the library in 1975. My initial established USCF rating was 1495, but I played no rated events in the 1970s, and only casual chess in the 1980s. In 1990, I returned to tournament play in an unrated event at my university. I took second place. In 1995, I played in my first USCF rated event. In 2009, I passed over 1800, peaking in the high 1900s.

If I was ever at the 500 Elo skill level, it was before I started reading chess books.

In 1995, I read Pawn Structure Chess, playing out the analysis on a chessboard that had no notation aids printed on the edge. Although I can still read and sometimes visualize descriptive (I played blindfold chess via descriptive in the 1970s), algebraic has been much easier since the mid-1990s. 

i guess take mine into example, rijul shah, but my ratings hot very high once 

i have that book! as well as Victor Bologan's black weapons

Generally a plateau is to be expected in any learned skill. It take much more dedication to move to higher levels. Some will be happy to stay at their plateaued level and few will put in the work needed to advance. Play alone will not make your rating advance it will take study and real practice to move up.

After a steady rise of 1000 points with minimal study I hit a plateau in the 1970s and got too busy for chess for a while, came back in the 1980s and studied so go up about 400 points, got married in the 1990s, had a kid and stopped studying, resulting in dropping about 100 points, and have lost another 50-100 (fluctuates) as retirement approaches.

I totally agree.   In fact, for several years I tried a ratio of about 90% studying and only 10% playing and my rating rose about 300 points.   Before that it was stagnant.   In case anyone is wondering, I mostly studied books about middlegame strategies, outposts, piece imbalances, pawn breaks/levers and good vs bad pawn structures.   My tactics and endgame are still weak for my level though.   I hate studying endgames.  

No way and I have proof. Within 2 years I went from 500 to 1500. I think that from ages 5-25 it is possible to continuously improve but then you start to plateau.

Also players usually increase in short spurts when they reach the plateau.

I am just repeating what I have heard from GMs and other high up chess players who have spent years studying this topic...

Check your math. At age 35, I had been playing chess 27 years and had a solid understanding of tactics, endgames, and tactics. At that time I started playing USCF OTB chess and established a solid C-Class rating. Over the next sixteen years, I raised my rating nearly 500 points.

Yesterday, I posted this narrative at https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-players-peak

If you look at my graphs on this site, the improvement is half that because I was in the 1700s USCF when this site came into existence (already 250+ above my initial established rating), and I had been playing chess 39 years.