When is it too late to start playing (and getting good at) chess?

That's the weasel word.  Make them get really specific.  First learned the rules?  First read a book?  First played in a tournament?

Oh no, I learned years and years ago, and my uncle had some books, and my friend who played was my rival... but I didn't really play, and I didn't actually read the books.  And those tournaments I went to as a kid were just for fun, I wasn't really learning.

Yeah yeah, that's great.  But when they're telling you all this just be sure to compare it to your specifics of what starting means for you.

A good way to trick them is to get them to tell you about their biggest rating jump on paper (not biggest in terms of time span).

"Yeah I wasn't playing at all for 20 years but when I came back I went from 1100 to 1800 in 2 months and within 3 years I was a master."

i.e. they were studying and playing during their 20 year break.

Hence, Wafflemaster, why I say "no known documented case." 

Everyone has an anecdote, but so far no one has evidence.  

And when you do get their rating graph or otherwise detailed information you usually see the ten ton pile of BS for what it is.  Well... that's been my experience anyway.

Kingpatzer, I agree with you.

The problem with Second Language Acquisition and age is that no one knows yet why you can't become indistinguishable from the native speaker of your target language once you are past 14. This was told to me and other students by Noam Chomsky more than 10 years ago. 

Up to age 8, no problem at all, after 14, one case in a million, and probably this speaker already knows a second language. For instance, a friend of mine is Dutch and his Spanish is perfect. He learned Spanish in his late 20s. He knew English and some other languages before. Phonetics play a huge role in Second Language Acquisition. For instance, I can speak Italian with a beautiful accent, or a Greek can speak Spanish with no accent. It's all in the phonetics, the vowels, etc.

IM Leonard "Corky" Schakel started playing Chess at 28. I believe he plays Correspondence Chess, which would make a lot of sense, because as you get older you become slower and with this type of Chess this is not a problem. Can anyone confirm this? http://jfcampbell.us/oly17/profiles-final.htm

ICCF allows (and even encourages) computer use.  While it is a type of chess, it is not what we are talking about. Corky's last published USCF rating is 1679 -- he's a respectable club player, not a master. 

Wow, 1679...That's really low! I definitely wasn't expecting that :)

Little confession: I have low self-esteem. When I lose a game, I get devastated. I kinda contradict myself this way: why take a game in which I don't really expect to get a master title so seriously? Gotta change this mindset somehow.

Why do we like going out and having a couple of beers? Or videogames? Or books? Same reason we play chess: it makes us happy, at least for a while. 

Let's say I have about 100 friends, whenever I meet them I occasionally play against 2 or 3 of them at the same time. For them, I am a Chess god,because they just know the rules and little more. They beat me at Poker or at any game, but they can't beat me at Chess. I only know one  friend who is a NM, and I have never played him :)

Magnus Carlsen is a god for us, for Houdini...For Houdini is just a decent player.

Rambling Hypothesis:

Chess is a game of power struggles, replicating life itself.  Suppose that those who want to become 'Master' players desire complete control of the outcome.  Those who play only to play find a different experience.  An excellent player may not be a master player, but may derive a deep feeling of personal creativity and energy from the conflict on the board.  An excellent player still desires to win but experiences surprise attacks as part of the meaning of the game.  The master player does not want to be surprised by any move on the board and must win in order to feel validated as a chess player.  Let us say, the excellent, not master, player can move on and is not attached to the past.  The excellent player is unafraid of defeat, seeing defeat as the inevitable consequence of playing against a sea of opponents, all seeking to introduce surprise attacks.

The attitude toward failure can influence play.  Perhaps the excellent player accepts the reality of death on the chess board in a different way from those who must be obsessesd with rank and seriousness.  We are all, at times, caught driving toward status and rank.  We can lose sight of the joy of play.  . . . . . But, each game is followed by a new game, thus play does not need to end.

An excellent player may become a master player without intending to do so.  . . . . . When I see that my opponent has made a move and it is my turn, I am anticipating a surprise attack.   I open the game to see what he or she has done.  Sometimes I smile that my defense has held or that my opponent has become desperate.  Sometimes I am instructed in my own carelessness and stupidity.  And sometimes, I am shocked by the destruction.  All of these create adventures in reasoning carefully.  I vacillate in my attitude toward play, but creating counter surprises is the essence of play in chess. 

I guess my point is to preserve a sense of well-being through remembering that it is finally only a game. 

Kingpatzer is 100% correct. I began playing around 28 and I am 30 now and despite buying a few books and playing thousands of games, i have noticed hardly any improvement in my game.  

I would fully disagree with everyone here and say go find a new hobby as 90% of people who play chess devote their whole life to it and you will never ever ever beat them and just get frustrated.  You will likely loose 70-80% of your games...so ask yourself...do i want to spend my time and effort investing in a hobby where I will most likely never ever get that good and loose most of my games?

You could be spending your time doing a lot better for yourself.  Chess just makes you feel stupid. 

Blackburn started at 18 or 19

I am 13. I would do anything to reverse time back so that I would I have started at 3 or 4 and become 2400 rated now. wHAT can I do though??

Interesting thread and I read it quite a bit late. I am currrently receiving coaching from Dan Heisman myself and seeing massive improvements in my chess and I started playing again seriously last month at the ripe young age of 34. I asked him about this very question as well as talking to other Master's that I've played with at my chess club and I get the following impression: Many adults (20+) who just start playing chess are likely never to reach a master level play because of the amount of work and time it requires to get to that level of play. Sure, being older after your brain is fully developed would make it harder to become a Master as well but the general consensus seemed to be that work, family responsibilities, college etc. Really puts a damper on your chess play and study time and this is the main reason most folks starting late won't get there. It would be nice to chat with a Master level player who started in his 20's and get his thoughts on this.

I'm not sure there are NM level players who started competition chess after 25. I may be wrong.

I take this as a good thing, meaning it isn't impossible to become a Master if you start late, you just really have to devote yourself to the game in order to get there. A few games a month and an hour of study here and there just isn't going to cut it.

I haven't met one hicetunc, I heard they exist though.

It isn't too late unless you're dead.

Can you be a "master" if you start at >25?  Sure!

Definition of "master" being the pinnacle of tactics, strategy, and cunning that you're currently able to imagine... i.e. ~1300.

So yes, you can be really really REALLY amazingly good, and beat all your friends who only know how the pieces move, and you can beat them 100 out of 100 times.