Is it possible for me to learn chess as an older person?

I have to play a lot of chess for job reasons and thus had to get into it at my old age of 40. I read a lot of books, learned the tactics, basic positional play, endgame and openings. I meet players rated 2000+ regularly. They discuss with me how to learn chess, analyse my games, show me games and openings, etc. 

So I have been trying this for more than a year now, as much as time allows and I can bring the energy into.

But yet, I do not progress that much. E.g. I do tactics puzzles a lot, but yet cannot get over 1400 at the tactics trainer here. It is very hard for me to remember opening theory, and miss tactical opportunities. 

I have a 1600 something rating at the "online" games here (not that this means a lot, I guess) but I do not play like this anymore since I realized it does not benefit my visualisation skills. 

Am I simply to old to get into chess at age 40?

It took me two and a half years of serious several-days-a-week studying with coaches and tournament pkay to break get past the 1500, as a teenager!

.

1600 is a great rating! With that, you can probably beat anybody at work, anybody in your family, anybody at most any party you go to.

Do you realize, in the US, there are entire rural counties, do not have anybody rated that high?

Buck up! Only question you need to ask yourself is, are you enjoying yourself playing chess.

If the answer is yes, cograts! You have a hobby you can easily do until your 80. Sure will beat bingo or shuffleboard!

You can learn, improve, and enjoy it for the rest of your life.  But you won't be as good as you would have been if you'd started at age 7.

lol, at my workplace I cannot beat that many people. 

yes, I do enjoy it. Even though I have to admit that I dont like the time pressure. Hence I play more against the computer or some relaxed OTB. 

I do not see myself playing shuffleboard or bingo anytime soon.  Maybe chess will help with the dementia that seems to be running in my family.

1600 USCF or 1600 chess.com online rating?  Because there's, I don't know... something like 1000 points difference there

1600 online rating. I dont think I would write this if I would be 1600 USFC. ( I thought I made that clear in my OP, sorry if I caused confusion.)

I am FIDE unrated as I do not attend official tournaments. 

There are a lot of tips that should be taught to intermediate players. Here's a quickie. You can glance at the board and determine instantly the optimal square for safety from an attacking knight. For a knight to attack any square diagonally two squares away will require three moves. This is one of the weaknesses of a knight, although a bishop too has weaknesses. So when moving the King rapidly in end games in blitz, go to those squares for safety. You do not even have to stop to think about it, you get three moves without a check, There are time-saving tricks like that that have saved me a lot of time over the years.

good tip, Count Grob! I just read something related by Lev Alburt. According to the soviet school of chess, you need to know the colour of each square by heart, and need to exercise having the knights jump around on the board in your head. (E.g. Imagine a knight on h1 and now get it to f3)

I have to admit that I do have problems with this. But I guess the old Soviets had good reasons for this mental excercise.

Knowing this stuff (what Grobula mentioned) at a glance saves you not only time, but you spare yourself the confusion of looking at other  squares. 

I just wonder whether I can really still learn chess soviet-style. Or maybe I am just too lazy?

(Learning chess soviet style must be the right way as the old East German saying goes: "To learn from the Soviet Union means to learn how to win!")

"You're never too old to play chess"

Grobula, I think you means a minimum of 4 moves for a knight to get to the square two away diagonally (e.g., c3 to e5 can be done in 4 moves, but not 3). It can't be three, because the knight changes color every move, and the two squares will have the same color, so it'll be 2 or 4 or 6 ...

It is 3 moves minimum to get a knight to the horizontally or vertically adjacent square though (e.g., c3 to c4 or c3 to d3) which is also useful to know.

wow, no one asked the obvious question...

what kind of job do you have that requires you to play a lot of chess????

I teach chess to primary school kids. Not exactly soviet style. Believe me, my skills are match enough for them. 

I played an occasional game (once a week or so) for many years but started playing each day (on this site) just over a year ago. I'm 64 so at 40 you are just a youngster. My experience is that you do improve little by little. It's a bit of a wild guess but I would put my improvement at 100 rating points, or perhaps just a little under that, for the year.

I wouldn't worry about the tactics trainer. I was a bit frustrated with my performance on that but it cheered me up when I noticed some titled players fluctuate just as wildly as I do and their proportion of solved to failed is much the same also.

I meant three moves are required for the knight to attack the square upon which the King or other pawn or piece has moved, assuming that square is diagonally two squares away from the knight's starting position. For the knight to complete a capture or move upon that square, then four moves are required. This is an "easy to remember" tip and does not require much practice unlike Lev's exercises!

Oh yeah, you're right. You did say "attack the square", but I interpreted you as meaning "get to the square", because I've never thought before about how quickly a piece can attack another square, only about how long to get to the square itself.

I did get your tip, but I guess I did not put this well together in my post. 

Your tip is valuable, for chess is purely a mental sport. It is all about pattern recognition. It is about learning such patterns as you mentioned, remember to apply them in your games ... oh and yes, to recognize the situations when it is time to break with them. 

and exactly this learning of patterns is harder to do when you are an old person. Just like kids pick up languages fast and adults don't, old people have a harder time learning something like chess. 

that is pretty impressive.

My advice to older person, like myself, is avoid speed chess. Leave that for the young, like Magnus. Older players I think tend to be better, if they are indeed better anywhere, at longer games where they have the time to reflect and call upon past experiences. My speed chess rating is 600 points below my correspondence rating. It is because even clicking the mouse is a feat at my age. And if I need to go to the bathroom, then all bets are off. I lose!

As long as you are breathing and still of a functioning mind and body... sure why not 

 Well, I guess you have to suck out the blood of a g-pawn then to rejuvinate yourself. 

I think blitz is for the very experienced or for the people who do not want to play seriously.