Possible to get GM without being a child prodigy?

Hope this is the right section of the forums, and i didnt mean to offend with the title.

I've started solo learning chess a few weeks ago and enjoying it more and more. My rank, however, is not even worth showing yet because i still have so much to learn. That's fine, im not *necessarily* in a hurry. 

However, i've started watching some of the streams of Robin van Kampen+Yasser Seirawan, and ofcourse i've also heard of Magnus Carlsen. I looked up a little bit of info about them and what i found was pretty demotivating to see. They are all people who showed significant intelligence very early on and also started learning chess very early on so that they could compete with their intelligence.

Im just a 22 year old guy. And while i like to consider myself of above average intelligence, im by no means a genius like some of these guys. My question is, is it common for non-extraordinarily smart people to get GM? by just practice and learning? or is there a point where intelligence and insight are required to keep climbing in the ranks meaning i'd never be able to get GM?

Hope this made sense, English is not my first language and I'm very new to chess but i think i have found something I'd like to be involved with for the rest of my life.

You're more likely to die in a car crash than becoming GM.

Just set yourself reasonable goals like 1000 ELO. I just got there and set my next goal at 1200. Then it will be 1500 and after that air is getting thin rapidly.

Crandog: Let's put it this way, you enjoy chess greatly, and you've basically just started. Just enjoy yourself and the learning process! Chess is a great game, and I'm sure you're not disheartened when practising sports that you're extremely unlikely to ever play in the European or World Championships or the Olympic Games in any of them?

Having said that, there are examples of players who took up chess in their early 20s and went on to become GMs, two examples being Erik Lundin (1904-88) of Sweden (Lundin remained a very strong player until his death; in 1979, aged 75, he was still E2355, and I remember kibbitzing on him playing off-hand blitz when he was over 80 years old, his mind still razor sharp, not only playing extremely strong chess, but also ribbing his opponents endlessly.), and Mihai Suba (b. 1947) of Romania. Also, there's a further heartening story from the most recent Olympiad just concluded in Batumi, Georgia: WIM Rani Hamid (b. 1944) of Bangladesh. She was her country's first WIM, national champion a whopping 19 times, and British Women's Champion three times. She started playing chess at the age of 34(!!!) and her peak rating was E2230 in 1998, aged 54. Achieving a rating of E2200 higher, means that you're very select company. There are probably only about 15,000 to 20,000 people of the many millions of chess players in the world who are that strong.

Possibly of interest:
"... the NM title is an honor that only one percent of USCF members attain. ..." - IM John Donaldson (2015)
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
What It Takes to Become a Chess Master by Andrew Soltis
"... going from good at tactics to great at tactics ... doesn't translate into much greater strength. ... You need a relatively good memory to reach average strength. But a much better memory isn't going to make you a master. ... there's a powerful law of diminishing returns in chess calculation, ... Your rating may have been steadily rising when suddenly it stops. ... One explanation for the wall is that most players got to where they are by learning how to not lose. ... Mastering chess ... requires a new set of skills and traits. ... Many of these attributes are kinds of know-how, such as understanding when to change the pawn structure or what a positionally won game looks like and how to deal with it. Some are habits, like always looking for targets. Others are refined senses, like recognizing a critical middlegame moment or feeling when time is on your side and when it isn't. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093409/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review857.pdf
100 Chess Master Trade Secrets by Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094523/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review916.pdf
Reaching the Top?! by Peter Kurzdorfer
"... On the one hand, your play needs to be purposeful much of the time; the ability to navigate through many different types of positions needs to be yours; your ability to calculate variations and find candidate moves needs to be present in at least an embryonic stage. On the other hand, it will be heart-warming and perhaps inspiring to realize that you do not need to give up blunders or misconceptions or a poor memory or sloppy calculating habits; that you do not need to know all the latest opening variations, or even know what they are called. You do not have to memorize hundreds of endgame positions or instantly recognize the proper procedure in a variety of pawn structures.
[To play at a master level consistently] is not an easy task, to be sure ..., but it is a possible one. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2015/11/16/book-notice-kurzdorfers-reaching-the-top.html
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-fight-stereotypes-using-chess-in-rural-mississippi/
http://brooklyncastle.com/
https://www.chess.com/article/view/don-t-worry-about-your-rating
https://www.chess.com/article/view/am-i-too-old-for-chess
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-can-older-players-improve
Train Like a Grandmaster by Kotov
Becoming a Grandmaster by Keene
What It Takes to Become a Grandmaster by GM Andrew Soltis
"BENJAMIN FINEGOLD (born Sep-06-1969 ...) ... Ben became a USCF Life Master at 15, USCF Senior Master at 16, an International Master in 1989, and achieved his final GM norm at the SPICE Cup B Section in September, 2009. ..."
http://www.chessgames.com/player/benjamin_finegold.html
"MARK IZRAILOVICH DVORETSKY (... died Sep-26-2016 ...) ... He was ... awarded the IM title in 1975. Dvoretsky was also a FIDE Senior Trainer and noted author. ... During the 1970s, Mark was widely regarded by the strongest IM in the world, ..."
http://www.chessgames.com/player/mark_izrailovich_dvoretsky.html
"To become a grandmaster is very difficult and can take quite a long time! ... you need to ... solve many exercises, analyse your games, study classic games, modern games, have an opening repertoire and so on. Basically, it is hard work ... It takes a lot more than just reading books to become a grandmaster I am afraid." - GM Artur Yusupov (2013)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf
https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/book-review-insanity-passion-and-addiction
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/26/books/books-of-the-times-when-the-child-chess-genius-becomes-the-pawn.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2017/05/05/making-a-living-in-chess-is-tough-but-the-internet-is-making-it-easier/#4284e4814850

https://www.chess.com/news/view/is-there-good-money-in-chess-1838
"... Many aspiring young chess players dream of one day becoming a grandmaster and a professional. ... But ... a profession must bring in at least a certain regular income even if one is not too demanding. ... The usual prize money in Open tournaments is meagre. ... The higher the prizes, the greater the competition. ... With a possibly not very high and irregular income for several decades the amount of money one can save for old age remains really modest. ... Anyone who wants to reach his maximum must concentrate totally on chess. That involves important compromises with or giving up on his education. ... it is a question of personal life planning and when deciding it is necessary to be fully conscious of the various possibilities, limitations and risks. ... a future professional must really love chess and ... be prepared to work very hard for it. ... It is all too frequent that a wrong evaluation is made of what a talented player can achieve. ... Most players have the potential for a certain level; once they have reached it they can only make further progress with a great effort. ... anyone who is unlikely to attain a high playing strength should on no account turn professional. ... Anyone who does not meet these top criteria can only try to earn his living with public appearances, chess publishing or activity as a trainer. But there is a lack of offers and these are not particularly well paid. For jobs which involve appearing in public, moreover, certain non-chess qualities are required. ... a relevant 'stage presence' and required sociability. ... All these jobs and existences, moreover, have hanging above them the sword of Damocles of general economic conditions. ... around [age] 40 chess players ... find that their performances are noticeably tailing off. ..." - from a 12 page chapter on becoming a chess professional in the book, Luther's Chess Reformation by GM Thomas Luther (2016)
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/LuthersChessReformation-excerpt.pdf

Ben Finegold became GM at age 40, so why not?.. I think the key is to become really good at tactics, by playing blindfold chess. You have to be able to play chess in your head. When you start dreaming about chess positions, you're on the right track!

Because Finegold started playing as a child and got his first titles in his early teens.

It just takes time and money to get the GM title.. A regular GM can only make a living by teaching chess. That's why there are only 1500 GMs. But there are many more who play at the GM level.

There are not many more that play at GM level! There are maybe just a few. Plenty of strong club player level without official ratings perhaps.

just wanted to say thanks everyone for the answers! some people seemed to be a little offended maybe with the way i worded things. i didnt mean it like that. I think my biggest issue was that i didnt know how high of a level GM really is, which i guess makes it even more amazing that i get to watch some of these people provide their insight for free on streams! And as BonTheCat said, i do enjoy just playing chess even if i wont ever get far, but i do want to set a (realistic) endgoal. even if that goal takes 50 years to obtain! I think CM is the ''lowest'' title right? maybe i should aim for just being titled instead

I don't think the starting age is really as big issue as some people say. I've looked through a tons of rating progressions from players on different levels, players who started as adults, players who started as kids, those who made it to GM and beyond (Super-GM) and those who were prodigies but never made it to GM. If you compare the rating lists of top 50 players in a country based on age, you'll notice that it takes approximately 7 years for a determined 7 year old to reach the master level (those who are around top 50 in a country in their age class). Kids actually progress much slower in their first years compared to an adult starting from a scratch. I would probably do fairly decent against ~ 1400-1500 rated players in a tournament, even though I haven't played chess for more than 9 months.

See, the issue is that when kids start practicing something, their parents usually send them to a chess club, get a coach and the kids who get to a higher rating stick to it for years. Most of them are probably not in any way superbly "talented", but by actively involving themselves in their hobby cumulates thousands of hours of practice over the years. So you see a teenager with a master title, and you must think that how on earth could you ever catch someone who is so far beyond you at such a young age? How can someone so much younger can be so much better at something?

But this is the typical fallacy where we believe that this whole learning concept is much easier for kids than it is for adults. After all, if someone is a master in their teens, they must've been a prodigy! No. At least 90% of ability to do something comes from a dedicated, structured practice. Maybe 10% for talent, which makes some people learn faster and eventually stand out from the crowd. A teenager master probably has accumulated at least couple hours of practice on a daily basis since they were 6-7 years old! That's easily about 5000 to 10000 hours of practice!

My point is that 22 years old is by no means too old to learn chess and get really good at it. GM level might be out of reach (due to simple competitive nature of the game, where you have to remember, that those who got to say NM level at 18 are still pursuing just as hard towards GM, as someone starting chess at 22 would), but becoming an expert or even master is definitely doable. I would say that with the right type of practice you could get to a level of a good 9-10 year old (1600-2000) within couple years of very dedicated practice, especially if you have a coach guiding you. After that you would still have 6 more years, before you are 30 to go beyond that...

...And then there is the hard part. By looking at the rating progression of kids at different age groups, we can safely say that for a very talented kid, it takes at least 4 to 5 years to reach master level (2200). We can also pretty safely say, that if you are at the very top of your age group, you are most likely practicing twice as hard as your competition, and most likely putting thousands of hours of practice in a one year. Let's make a very conservative estimate and say that even the most talented master can't make it to a master level without at least 3 years of practice, practicing multiple hours a day. There we could make an estimation, that in order to reach a master level, you are required to practice at least 3000 hours (probably much more). And if you are not superbly talented, focused and dedicated, we can easily double that number. And then perhaps add a bit extra, because you are starting at an older age (where learning might be faster at the beginning, but most likely progression gets increasingly more difficult at higher rating levels).

I think the biggest issue why the stories of adult beginners reaching master level are extremely rare, is because of the sheer amount of time and dedication it takes to reach the level of a national master. You can put two hours of practice in it every day for two years, and I'd be very surprised if you would be even near to an expert level. This is very demotivating thing for most chess players, and they decide to pursue other interests, where the results and rewards require much less effort. Frankly, most of the adult beginners don't even have the time or energy to study two hours a day for a year (let alone a few!).

So that being said (and to sum all of this up), I don't think there is anything impossible preventing adult beginners from reaching master level (2200) in chess. The biggest obstacle is the player him-/herself and the motivation to understand that mastery takes years and years of dedicated work. If you are playing chess for the sole reason of attaining a master status, you will never make it. It's way too much effort for too little value. Only way for an adult to become a master is to truly love the game and really enjoy the learning process, in order to keep it up for years and years to come.

Give yourself a simple starting goal. Let's say something like:

I will study/play chess for at least one hour every day for the next year.

That's 365 hours of practice right there. After this you should have a fairly good starting point to understand the basics (and beyond) of chess, have a fairly accurate measure of your rating compared to other players and an idea whether or not chess is a game for you.

If you are serious, here are couple tips:

1. Play rapid time control (15|10 or 30|0) games. I believe they are the best time controls for beginners. You have some time to actually think, but games don't last too long so you can play a game or two every day.

2. Go through every game you play afterwards and try to see where you could've improved. Use engine afterwards to see if your conclusions were correct.

3. Study tactics (preferably with a structured book), this is the key for a beginner to go from beginner to mediocre player.

4. Watch games of masters, preferably with a commentary. There are YouTube channels like ChessNetwork and John Bartholomew, where a master is playing games while commenting his moves. This is invaluable way to get insight of the way higher level players think.

5. Get involved in chess community! This can be either due to online channels, YouTube, forums or with a local chess club. Watch masters play on high class events like Olympiads, Championship matches and high level tournaments. The best way to keep yourself motivated is if you have people to talk to about your interests, you know what's happening at the top of the game and you really learn to love the game for what it is (and not for superficial goals like rating milestones or titles).

I don't think anybody who has made a forum post like this has ever become a GM (I might not be the first person the say this but it needs to be said).

Probably... but why would you want to? Seems like a waste of a life.

People who do it generally do it in less than 10 years.

And people who do it generally love chess enough to give it a shot regardless of what others tell them is or isn't possible.

Pretty sure a 20 year old beginner is not going to be a GM after 6-7 hours a day for 8 years.

Sure they'll improve a hell of a lot, but if that's all it took there'd be a lot more GMs (and IMs).

Naa, I didn't miss it, I just left it out for the sake of brevity.

If a 20 year old beginner followed Pfren's outline exactly, it unlikely they will be GM. That's just simple statistics.

And as usual, no one can name a single person who has done it (in the modern age) so I stand by my claim that it's unlikely to happen.

But I agree that it's good advice, and I agree with you that most people can't afford it, and don't have the will to do it, and would have a small chance of success in the end.

Just want to point out that "is it possible" is the absolute minimum threshold.

"Is it possible" doesn't really tell you anything.

So I tell you there are no laws of physics or mathematics absolutely barring you from being a GM... not exactly encouraging is it

 Why would I want to be a GM? There's no serious money to be made from tournaments, except for super GMs. If the question was: "Do you have to be a child prodigy to become a super GM?", then I would agree. It's just ridiculous that Magnus Carlsen or Nakamura has the same GM title as players like Ben Finegold or Simon Williams. They would be completely destroyed if they played against these super GMs. There should be a separate title for super GMs.

Here's the nagging question:  Is attaining GM worth the cost of attaining it?  

Lol, what if you're in year 5 and you just made 2200 ELO.  Still going for GM then?

I didn't reject it either. I told the OP that it's possible in #23.

And you're right that I don't have a list of names to know who is studying and how much and at what age. But FIDE has a lot of member and relatively few GMs. I personally know people who have enjoyed playing and studying their whole lives (many decades). think it's pretty easy to see that work does not always yield improvement... even when you actually are learning new things, it doesn't always improve your practical results.

Even if you don't become titled, you can become a really good player. Just practice hard, and you will improve. Good luck!