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

Forget all of these nay-sayers! If you want to become a GM, then become a GM. All in all, the GM title has a criteria; fulfill that criteria. If you really WANT to be GM, the what is stoping you other than you.....and all of the other GM's you must face, but that is part of learning and becoming a GM. And no matter what, the path to becoming a GM will grant you so many other opportunities; such as befriending a GM, who, might help you earn that title. The possibilities are worth the chance, and by the looks of it, nothing is holding you back other than your own commitment. Regardless of others' attributes ( i.e. M. Carlsen ), there really is nothing that can stop you from getting there; especially with all of the technology out there, seriously - Table Base! 

Or, alternatively, you could stay grounded in reality.

Carlsen is under 30, convercation over (period)

Of course you can bold-face lie if you want to but it's pretty obvious you've never read the source material for the 10,000 hour rule. Which means you're just talking out of your ass.

Back to the OP: I've only seen one or two replies in this thread that REALLY address what you're going to face to get to that title. Besides the incredibly hard work, the 5-6 hours a day of study and play and preparation, the psychologically punishing work of trying to defeat VERY strong players at every stage of the game, and the native intelligence/talent--you have to immerse yourself in CHESS CULTURE.

That is, you spend every spare moment--and certainly every weekend--at tournaments and clubs where the top players hang out. You play them at tournament time controls, you play them at skittles, you sit and analyze with them until 2:00 AM. Then you go home and do your own preparation with books and databases. This is not a thing you do in your spare time. It IS your time; it's your life.

For me, I'll play here on chess.com and get the occasional victory I can boast about (even to myself). And I'll read some books and study my endgame technique. And I'll have dinner and watch TV and read a mystery novel and talk to my wife and go out to the movies and play with my grandchildren and have a life.

The fundamental, overriding problem here, is that you're in a losing race against time in which you must cross the GM threshold before your cognitive decline, which sets in around 30, makes that prohibitive.

You forgot going to work.  That one's kinda' important.

Going to work's not the important bit -- it's the acquisition of food and shelter.  Work's just one means to that end.

I disagree.  The quality of food and shelter and the amount of work and money necessary to maintain that quality is what is important.

So, yeah, gotta' go to work.  It would be nice to be one of those Trustafarians, though.

Considering the OP is in 1200's, and making a 100 point rise in a year is already a feat in and of itself, I'd say, get real. Of course, getting from 1200 to 1300 is easier than, say, 1800 to 2000, and as you get higher, well...

GM is 2500 isn't it? Yeah, just get real.

I actually have, please don't make any assumptions without asking first. In his Outliers book, he offers many anecdotes on how those who have become successful needed opportunity, hard work and talent among other things. Bill Gates wouldn't have been the person he was now if he wasn't able to operate the computers at a time when they were first introduced to the university crowd. The Jewish lawyers wouldn't have been as successful if they weren't forced to do litigation work at a time when that type of work was frowned upon. I've accomplished more in chess than most and even so, there are millions others who've worked harder than me who haven't reached my heights or who worked less than me who've gone on to become GM's or more.

The 10,000 hours is an arbitrary number Malcolm Gladwell came up with to justify his many anecdotal tales. I'm not saying don't work hard or that you can become a GM without doing the hard work but rather don't rely on the number of hours as a critical measure of how close you are to getting better at chess. It wouldn't make sense to spend 10 years starting at age 30 and finding out you're only a 1800 when you turn 40. As a last note, in my experience, I've found that the most talented and strongest individuals are almost always kids who started chess at around 6-12 years old. Something to do with brain elasticity with younger people. Same reason language is easier when you're young.

Well put MSteen, I am about as good at chess as I want to be.  Occassionally I dig deep into some study but for the most part what I pick up from playing here or when I get the time my club is enough.  For me, knowing what it what it would take to get better is enough.  Its there if I want it.  I don't meet alot of people in real life outside of my chess club that can dismiss my game easily so that awesome.  Im really good at chess to most people.  I have set the goal for myself of USCF 1800.  It may take another 10 years but thats fine by me as I love this game.  Cheers! and best of luck to all.

"The title Grandmaster is awarded to strong chess players by the world chess organization FIDE. Apart from World Champion, Grandmaster is the highest title a chess player can attain. Once achieved, the title is held for life. In chess literature it is usually abbreviated to GM (similarly, FM stands for FIDE Master and IM for International Master). The abbreviation IGM for International Grandmaster is also sometimes used, particularly in older literature."

You don't have to be a genius, just smarter than a lot of people

Yeah, that's the reality.  I assume to the uninitiated they think along the lines of "oh a board game, I know it's supposed to be had but how hard could it be?  I'm even willing to read some books!"

hehehe...

lol...Not exactly refuting Bobbylow's point.

Who needs to?  Even a moment of reflection is enough to convince anyone that it's patent crapola.

If there were more posts (and posters) like this around here, who knows? There might even be more titled masters stopping to hang around.

Kasparov said a couple of months ago that he had never taken an IQ test, and he wasn't interested either. He told that to Leontxo Garcia, a Spanish journalist and IM he befriended in 1987 in Seville. Judit Polgar told him the same. 

Maybe getting hit on the head with that board made him forget.

But Bobbylow is simply stating things strongly and accepting them. I think the 10,000 hours idea can be applied more like "every good player has put in an amount of time such as this" vs "every player who puts in this amount of time will be very good."

10,000 hours seems really strange and specific, but I'm not going to make judgments only because it seems like it should take different amounts of time to get good at different things. It could have to do with how long it takes for patterns to emerge in the brain -- I don't really know, but before I would make a sure judgment I'd try to think about where the number came from, research it a bit more.