Can I become a grandmaster?

I'm 21 yrs old, I didn't read chess books when I was a kid, but I was the chess champion in my primary school. Although I know, I was far from being a child prodigy. I used to play with the orthodox method, the safe playing, no gambits. For a few weeks I have watched a lot of old games and played a lot. Tal and Alekhine have awesome styles. They can see far ahead, gambit and win. I can't do that, but I think I can learn how to do it. Normal checkmates don't satisfy me anymore. I want to trick people and do checkmates. Anyway, if I study a lot, can I become a GM?

Probably not.  You're just too far behind your potential peers who've been studying and playing their butts off for at least the last decade.  Doesn't mean you can't become expert or even a titled player, but you have your work cut out for you.  GM is probably a stretch, but I hope you can prove me wrong!

Okay. That's for being realistic. I was thinking the same. Carlsen was a GM when he was 13 yrs old. 

No.

Too late for your age. Continue playing, studying, joining otb tourneys. If u really want that GM title, u can win it from the World Seniors Open.

the bigger more interesting question is, can you/ will you improve in chess?

will you put in the effort to really deeply acquire the skills that a Master has.  you don't mention a grinding game to an endgame win;  but many games are won that way- and you won't be strong unless you learn it...

Learning is no problem. The thing I wanted to know is, what's the difference with a child who tries to learn chess and an adult who tries to learn chess? Sure, their brain is fresher, but I think I can do it too.

Are there any GMs who started mastering chess when they're adults?

Is it possible?  Yes.  Is it likely?  No.

The main reason it isn't likely is that you are so far behind the curve relative to where you need to get. 

Think of it this way...why were most GM's these days strong players (not always GM's, but at least FM or IM) while they were still in school?  Two reasons.  The first is physiological, the second is circumstancial. 

The physiological part is that the younger you are, the more elastic your brain is.  It's easier to learn when you are younger.  Your brain picks up on concepts quicker and as a result you are able to improve faster.

The circumstancial part is that when you are in school you are still living at home, meaning that you don't have to pay rent and bills and buy groceries, etc.

At 21, your brain may very well be elastic enough to allow you to become a GM, but starting basically from scratch means that you have such a large amount to learn that the time commitment will likely be too much since you will also have to work full time.

It is possible to improve as an adult.  I have gained 400 points peak to trough in OTB from age 37-42.  I started just under 1500, have made it as far as just under 1900, and intend to make it to 2200.  That may very well be possible, but it's going to take a lot of time.  Here's why:

Statistically speaking every 130 Elo points represents being twice as good.  So you would expect a 1530 player to beat a 1400 player two out of three.  This means that on average you need to learn twice as much as you know currently to get to the next 130 point level.

So gaining the 400 points I have done means that I now know eight times as much about chess now as I did when I started playing again.  In order to make it to master I will have to know around six times as much as I do now.  Which if you do the math means that as a 2200 I would need to know 48 times as much as I did at 1500.

That takes time.  And as an adult it's not easy to find that time.  It's possible, but it requires a lot of patience, dedication, and mostly just plain old hard work.

So let's take your rating of 1142 blitz and approximate it to 1100 FIDE.  To get to GM you need to get to 2500 FIDE (among other things) which means that you need to know around 1536 times as much about chess as you do now. (2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x1.5=1536)  My math skills such, so this could very well be an even higher number.

Can you learn 1536 times what you know now?  Well, the first several x2 aren't that hard.  It should be fairly easy to get to, say 1500.  you'llonly need to know eight times what you do now.  But then it slows down.  After all, 1630 will require 16 times what you know now.  1760 will mean 32 times what you know now, etc.  So it gets progressively harder.  This is why so many people stop at a certain level somewhere between 1800-2100...it's just so time consuming to continue to learn as much as you need to.

So good luck, but be realistic.

Has anyone that started after age 20 ever become GM ?  

NO. well. not in 130 years. if memory serves me, the English Master Joseph Blackburne learned when he was 18 and became a feared chess player- beating players of day with sharp attacking chess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry_Blackburne

a couple things to say about this.  first, Blackburne was Never a gm because that honor wasn't evented, officially until 1950. prior to that there is a legend that the russian tsar confered it to the strongest players in a tournament in 1914.

ok. thats being picky. there's  no dobut Blackburne was a very strong chess player with a late start on the game.

a little while back we had a very extensive thread looking for masters who started late, or where low rated as kids.

it was VERY discouraging- no one could name a single GM,  I don't believe we actually found even a Master who was low rated as a kid.  out of thousands of very strong players (many thousands since we searched for names to the start of titles).  Almost all were very clearly improving in their childhood.   People like Tal

(wikipedia "Shortly thereafter he joined the Riga Palace of Young Pioneers chess club. His play was not exceptional at first, but he worked hard to improve") 

and Karpov

(Wikipedia "Botvinnik made the following remark about the young Karpov: "The boy does not have a clue about chess, and there's no future at all for him in this profession" ) 

talk about a slow start; but russian chess WAS demanding and they would rapidly improved as a child.

the real problem in my eyes, is that you don't understand how difficult it is, how challenging to improve at all.  many people play thousands of games with almost NO improvement.   there's NO gurarentee of results; not coaching, books, etc.  No "magic Bullet" to this.   You've got to improve and Improve a lot more! 

if we consider that 400 elo is basically a revolutionary difference in chess. (as in someone 400 elo will almost CERTAINLY win against you - and is heavily favored)....  where do you stand at 1200 rating (which Isn't BTW where a beginner usually starts).

1200 you

1600 your chess god, a guy who absolutely can cream you

2000 HIS chess god, "an Expert", a guy who can absolutely polish off a 1600

2400 a MASTER, who is Yes a chess god to the "expert"

2800 the WC, who doesn't consider a Master to be much of a challenge...

you must get to 2500 to come close to qualifying as a gm.

----

SO basically OP.  Nobody knows What a late starter like you CAN do.  but no one has mastered this game with a late start in over 100 years.  My point is that you Don't understand who daunting this challenge really is.

if you can improve as an adult, it is good.  But your on the start of Your program, as a near beginner I would expect improvement.  getting better and better becomes more and more difficult.  

If your motivated to improve You should.  starting this way, though, you risk getting caught up in an ego trap.  Chess will make you feel dumb sometimes, there will be alot of loses and you may make little progress.

if you can accept that reality. there's hope.  if you Must achieve something- you will become frustrated after initial improvement diminishes.

sorry for the long post. hopefully you found it helpful.

@REb.  I'm almost SURE we had this conversation , with Mr Wall- and the answer was NO.

excluding I suppose blackburne. and chess  is different then that it is now...

Just get as good as you can, and enjoy the game.  I would say due to your  age, the answer would be no.  But who cares?  Learn, and enjoy.

No

No reason, just because.

I started late myself ( age 20 ) and reached NM but have no hopes of being GM and never did . OP , you have a better chance of becoming a brain surgeon than becoming a GM starting as an adult . 

I read where Krammnik studies 12 hours a day.

If theres a will theres a way but probably not

Well, you'll never know if you don't try.

However, you can put this into a sports analogy.  If you consider titled players as the pool of 'professionals' then a 1700 is someone who played ball in college but didn't make it to the pros.  Someone at 1200 was a starter in high school but couldn't make a college team.  Someone at 1200 might be able to practice hard and make a college team.  They might even make the pros practice squad after years of work.  However there's as much difference between a high school starter and a practice squad pro as there is from that practice squad to Peyton Manning.  Kurt Warner went from HS star to nothing to Super Bowl MVP, so it is possible.  That's also the end of that list, so it's improbable at best.

Troll topic alert!