@Richard_Hunter
We aren't discussing chess in any way that his rating or mine is of any significance. Not with regards to tactics, strategy, end game theory, openings, or any other part of chess in which his title is of any consequence.
We are having a comparative discussion related to chess and other sports, specifically regarding an analogy with football, hockey, baseball, golf, etc... being compared to chess skill for the purposes of explaining the difficulty of obtaining elite level of play when one begins late in life.
My 1000 rating (granted by chess.com as I have yet to play a game here, for all you know I could be an IM or GM myself), nor his NM title, has any bearing on that discussion. This is similar to claiming that your last name makes you an expert on all things related to firearms since a "hunter" might use one to shoot a deer. You may not be a hunter, you may not use a gun, or know much about guns.
If we are having a comparative discussion and I have been a professional football and baseball player, does that make me a more valid expert than him and make my argument more valid by appeal to authority? Perhaps if I was a statistics professor? Or a sports psychologist? You can take your pick, but the comparison is equally unimportant.
Perhaps you should evaluate the argument instead of 'worshiping the little red letters' next to his name. I'm sure if Magnus Carlson waded into the discussion and said "the 1000 is right" you'd bow to his decision even if my argument was just bogus declarations.
Think for yourself my friend. Numbers aren't everything.
you havent provided a single hint that shows that you understand how vanishingly rare, later age GM's without being an at least expert strength in late- teens, early twenty's are.
i am confident in my answer because it is something that i am personally very interested in and done my own research on the matter with clearly more rigor than that wall of text without any significant point to make, and i already being in the 99th percentile of chess players understand the difficulty in getting there, and a good idea what further training i need to reach the next titles.
all you have shown is that you take your own opinion far too seriously, for someone that clearly has done so little research on the topic. There is a good reason why the overwhelming majority of masters just admit its not possible. ITs not because it is absolutely literally impossible mind you, but because in the almost 70 years, we had the grandmaster title, almost no one has pulled it off, and if some of Silman's testimony on the matter is of any relevance not for a lack of trying even among wealthy adult students of his who have tried.
the math is also pretty clear on this, GM's are like the top 0.3% percent of chess players. Late age GM's are FAR rarer than even 10% of GM players (certainly of the 1000+ GM's in history, 100 is too high a number for late age GM's, even 50 is probably far too high. the real number is probably closer to 20 or 30).
this means late age GM's are rarer than 0.03% percent of the chess population. This is 99th percent of the 99th percent level of rare.
I humbly suggest that a National Master might know a little bit more about Chess than some guy at 1000. I guess everyone is entitled to there opinions though.