too old to learn chess?

i know 18 year olds that act like grandpas and grandpas that act 18, you gotta decide for yourself holmes

Female chess career path is different from a male one. For men becoming a GM is only the first step towards becoming a respectable pro (since a 2500-level GM is not even top-500 in the world). For women to get invitations, nice appearance fees, etc. one should be a WGM + some titles and have a high place in the rankings. That is, a GM title would hardly change anything for me (since I'm currently #14 on the women's list, for comparison - #14 on the men's list is Karjakin). However, here at Chess.com many people seem not to be aware of it and think that I should be motivated to get the title for some reason. Had it been the case, I would have become a GM earlier instead of scoring 2600+ performances in female events.

Well, ok, maybe I do need to play a few GM-norm events after all so that people don't bug me with this.

 I agree with this 100%. I have known doctors and lawyers that played tournament chess for decades and never got better than A or B class. The important thing is that they loved the game and simply enjoyed playing and the competition. The people who think that an average Joe can become IM or GM simply have no concept of what these titles mean and how difficult they are to obtain. When you add starting at a late age ( lets say past 40 ) it becomes all but impossible. A player learning later in life can still become a good player but IM or GM ?  I dont think so......

If you are too old to improve your chess it means you are too old for everything:

In your job you have to learn, improve, update your knowledge every day. Why not in chess?

But chess is very abstract and if you are older than maybe 30 years, your improvment needs - much- longer. Maybe its better to learn with books/CDs which are made for children: "Tasc Chess 2" for example but there are many other possibilities.

I improve from 800 to ~1150 in 1,5 year (47 years old) and I study not very often, because family.

Some two months ago I embarked on an effort to improve. So now I am at about 1200. I've become a beginner, but now I am quite bogged down. I am seeing little improvement. The climb above 1200 is difficult for me. I will continue with the Mentor Lessons just to see what comes of it. Might I gain a few hundred rating points by years end? I might not have much aptitude for the game.

Why don't you find a coach who wll play a slow game with you and explain as you go along, move by move, the reasoning behind each, and the errors you make on the way? An unrated game or two like that would be worth whatever the cost. And you might even get a game for free, for example, on chess.com!

42 in by no means too old- In a local club there are many seniors- many learning the game after retiring who are strong players reaching 1400-1600 uscf playing strengths in 2 to 3 years. Many people, ever having learned the game young never reach upper class levels- other really take off with it. Most improtant- have fun!

Looking at it from another perspective:

Chess has a positional and a tactical component, as well as a psychological side. 

Positional aspects

If it comes to positional understanding, books like "My System" (Nimzowich) and "Reassess your chess" (Silman) are certainly good enough to bring about real improvement.

The ideas can be a bit abstract at first, but if you look at enough games / positions things will become clear. It is my conviction that it is relatively easy to reach a 2000+ positional understanding. Easy meaning the time investment is manageable.

Tactics

 Tactical awareness relies heavily on your ability to calculate, and knowing when to calculate. I've also noticed that a lot of practice makes future positions spring up without the mental effort. (I'm quite sure GM's see rather deep without even feeling any mental strain) 

This effect is there on any level, but as an amateur you'll find that you have to start calculating earlier on. (you see the rook winning fork, but you have to calculate to see the mate threat once you take it. A GM just sees the mate and starts looking at another line)

I remember Silman writing in an article that after tons and tons of work and OTB tournaments, this tactical vision just kind of happened to him. Nowadays training is easier with a thing like the tactics trainer. I think tactically to get to 2000+ level requires lots of games (standard live seems better than correspondence because of the time constraint and no analysis board).

Psychological

When I started playing chess, somewhat more than 2 years ago at 22, I didn't know if pawns could capture backward or not. 

After one year of self study and online play (here) I went to a local club. I've blown quite some of my first games because of nerves, bad time management and clear (1-2 move) blunders - while playing strong chess up to then.

to clarify:

1. I lost the first game after being ahead a full rook because I missed his best reply. I was so unnerved that my subsequent game was completely inadequate, and I wound up losing a game that was still clearly won.

2. I lost the third game by too quicly lifting a rook and only then realizing it was a complete blunder hanging my queen. Just a double check would have sufficed. The position was won before.

3. I lost the fourth game which was a very tense and equal struggle with a 1800 because of bad time management, just a few moves after I had finally obtained a decent advantage.

To get the rating points, you need not only the positional understanding and the tactical ability, you also need the discipline and energy to bring it to every move, within the given time constraints. You can't become too emotional or distracted, not even when you are winning.

I think this is a very important part of scoring well. It is not for no reason that several WC's followed very strict physical workout routines. You have to be fit. When I started playing the external competition I was much more at home with OTB and these requirements, and I did rather well there.

Summary

If you are willing to seriously study positional chess (books) and to put in the time to master the tactics (tons of games, tactics trainer) and be willing to work for mental and physical fitness, then you can go very far.

In fact, if you are willing and able to dedicate yourself to this full time for, say, a year, I think you can become an expert at least, even at 40.

The thing is you have to be willing to really put in that amount of energy. And you have to have the discipline, because if it isn't there it won't magically appear because you want the rating boost.

I'd say that with some serious but hobby-like effort on all three fields, most people would reach between 1400 - 1800 depending on their natural ability.

For me an OTB rating of 1800+ would mean I'm a very decent club player, a challenging but manageable target. You'd have to set your own target, but I think the most fun is to be had when targets are realistic and linked to the work you are willing to put in :).

There may be hope for improvement. The number 42 is in Douglas Adams' book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is calculated by an enormous supercomputer over a period of 7.5 million years to be 42.

You probably shouldn't wait until you are 43.

 What you say is obvious to anybody with any common sense, but did the poor slob even ASK about becoming an IM or GM? When I decided to try learning this game a few months ago, I had never even heard of an IM or GM. Wanting to become one of those is not the only reason to learn chess.

At 42 you are past your mental and physical prime but you can still be good at chess.  Not as good as if you started younger, but that should be ok, right?

Euwe compares the study chess with scientific research,
so are you too old to perform research?
I don't think so.

 I'm not talking about some corny goal of becoming an IM, or whatever, but as far as being past his mental prime goes, there is a lot of new scientific research showing that the adults brain is far more elastic than once thought, and learning chess, and other new mentally challenging activities can help ward senility once thought to be caused by aging, but is actually caused by years of mental inactivity.

you can be a good chess player but not a grand master

Too old. Nah, never. The best years of one's life are the thirty years between age 29 and 30.

If you read my comment in context, and the comment immediately preceeding mine to which I was referring, you wouldn't have bothered with your post.

I wouldn't be too sure about that...

Getting bit threadbare ?