Why getting GM title is not possible at the age 30+? Is it a fact?

Indeed. A lot of people say they "want to be a GM" and I assume it's for the prestige. I'd say that most of the time, if you actually love the game, you don't need to suddenly "be a GM." If you just want to make a living or have prestige, there are a LOT of easier (and arguably better) ways than "studying a board game" for 10,000+ hours. (and still potentially not making it)

Not only that, but just being called a chess master (NM) would seem prestigious enough to normal folk. Why GM?

As someone else said, try for master first.  It will be a great achievement.  If you really want to be a GM, you're wasting your time in a forum talking about it.  At age 30, it will take the passion to spend all your free time doing nothing but chess and loving every second of it.  Impossible?  Who knows.  But if you do it, you'll probably set a record :p

Enrico Paoli was awarded the GM title at age 88, but he hadn't actually earned the three "GM norms" that the title requires. The oldest player to have earned the GM title in the usual way was Jaanis Klovans, who became a Master at 41 and finally gained the GM title at age 60.

Well, I didn't mean a record if he made it later in life.  Certainly there are many who have gained titles at an advanced age...

But looking at their history none of them were unrated and neophytes at age 30.  They were promising young players, maybe even titled, before taking a lengthy break.  If he began his chess journey at 30 and ended up a GM I think he would be the first ever.

totally , sorry

Your current rating is 1100. A GM is typically 2600. That means a GM could be defined as a player who would demolish a player who would demolish a player who would demolish a player who would demolish you.

What is the point of being a GM? Even a guy like Vallejo who had a 2700ish rating (I think everyone on the site would be super happy to have a rating of 2700) retired because he was a punching bag in strong tournaments.

Aim for top 5 at least!

Heck, I'm happy if I'm on the right side of the bell curve.

I've never quite understood why the bell-curve is meant to apply to chess players. Surely it must be more like a slope, with the majority concentrated at the bottom rather than in the middle. Don't forget, most "chess players" are casual enthusiasts who play a game with their friends from time to time.

Yes, most chess players are at the bell-end of the curve - if it's possible to say that - though I'm not sure if bell-curve even applies here. 

Slightly unfortunate way of phrasing it...

I started learning and playing chess at the age of 25. First rating 843. Now I Am 31 and my rating is 1656. I don't think that I can be a GM. If i had started when I was 15 maybe my changes to get at least FM would be good. But I learned chess from the beginning , had a lot of fun and saw how my chess play improved. If someone with 30+ begins learning chess and wants to get GM he needs to have plenty of  time and money and even then nobody can say if he will achieve this goal because psychology plays a role and each lose is frustrating and influences you at the next game because you are further away your goal and will have pressure to win the next one. I have set myself the goal to be 1800 rated. Which isn't so far away as the 2500 GM(plus norms). This a  realistic and reachable goal . If you are rated for example 1200 I would suggest you to set your goal 1500 rated  and have fun playing chess.

Kasparov.

1800 is a million miles away from 2500.

His IQ is 135. That is above average, and also impressive, but it would depend on the IQ test given to determine if that is genius or no. Many of them have different ratings levels. Generally over 140 is considered genius. Then again, on some tests it is 130 and on others 180. It would be difficult to know unless you can provide the type of testing carried out on Kasparov.

Well, firstly IQ tests measure your ability to solve IQ puzzles, they aren't a great measure of intelligence as most would understand it.

Secondly, find it hard to believe a man with the creativity, problem solving ability, calculation skills and memory of Kasparov has an IQ of 135. I've been tested higher and don't for a second believe myself to be more intelligent than him. They are quite inconsistent as well.

Depends on the test. This is from the Mensa website, listing just a few of the types of test and explaining that the figure is meaningless without knowing the type of test taken.

As different IQ tests were developed, each was given its own scoring system. Therefore, an IQ of 150 is a meaningless claim unless you know the actual test which was used. In order to compare one IQ test against another, the scores are converted to 'percentiles', i.e. where a person's score falls in comparison to the rest of the population by percentage. Mensa offers membership to anyone whose IQ score places them within the top two per cent of the population, no matter which approved test was used.

A top 2% mark in any of these frequently used tests below qualifies you for entry to Mensa. The minimum test mark to get into Mensa is:

• Cattell III B - 148
• Culture Fair - 132
• Ravens Advanced Matrices - 135
• Ravens Standard Matrices - 131
• Wechsler Scales - 132

Other sources say 180 on some other tests, again others say 140.

So you're saying that if someone lives on this planet for 30 years, they are incapable of becoming a grandmaster?

That question doesn't even deserve an answer.

and I agree with you regarding IQ tests measuring how good you are at IQ tests, but the post I quoted specifically said 'genius IQ', so I answered based on what is considered a genius IQ, not intelligence.

Not sure why it's hard to believe Kasparov would have a 135 IQ.  When professional players sit at the board they aren't accessing the areas of the brain that deal with logic and problem solving, they're mostly accessing long term memory.  That and learned skills like calculation go into being a good player.  This has been shown with imaging devices while masters play each other.  IQ is not supposed to change much, chess rating is supposed to change hundreds of points.

You may say "this man is in the top 1/10th% of downhill skier... he must also be in the 1/10th% of IQ also?  No.  lol.  Chess is a skill.