What is the highest rating realistically that you can reach

As just a chess hobbyist? Assuming that one is already an adult and has a day job. I'm at ~1400 after about 3 years of playing. My aim is around 1600. Is that too high or too low?

1400 in 2 years. 14 years old kid so I think I can do it. Maybe more

It is always difficult to tell how much potential actually manifests into "success" in anything. This includes chess. Furthermore, rating is tougher to raise when higher (since you are playing stronger competition), so rating improvement from 900 to 1000 is far easier than 2100 to 2200. I find it hard to honestly (and accurately) say how fast (and effectively) your rating can rise Richard_Hunter.

However, I find your goal reasonable and realistic. Of course, if you pass 1600 I am sure you will continue to try to improve your chess still - that is the nature of improvement for anything (not just chess).

When people assume you can reach x rating in y amount of time, they are either: 

1) assuming this improvement because it took them that long

or 

2) They are neglecting your personal circumstances (like a full-time job)

Usually this is the case, but sometimes other factors can get in the way too. I am a golfer, and sometimes improvement expectations in others reminds me of chess. Some golfers  drop 10 strokes off their handicap in one season, and other golfers remain the same for years. Sometimes a counfounding variable is directly responsible (sometimes, not always direct) such as a habit of slicing the golf ball; this habit may of been ingrained and take a full dedicated year or two to break that bad habit (in the fundamental swing usually) - before they truly improve at all.

The parallel for chess completes itself. Maybe you grew up with bad chess habits (like ignoring "opening principles) or never developed helpful habits (like analysis of games after you play them). 

You may not have these bad habits Richard_Hunter, but perhaps some counfounding variable will serve as an obstacle somewhere along the line of your improvement. In which case, you overcome the new obstacle as we all should; no one really cares how long it takes (except the player too often). If you meet a GM ... 

Are you in awe at their level of expertise? 

or 

Do you look at them differently if you knew one GM was a child prodigy and another GM took 20 years to reach that level?

The milestone of reaching 1600 should be your current goal. Once you reach it, you have done it. Assume you reach 1600, but then drop below it again ... this changes little! You have been to 1600 and nothing can take that away - you have been there.  The same applies to any other goal too.

Even with a job, I think 1600 is still reasonable. Some people forget the effort needed to get anywhere simply because the goal looks close, but from the way the original post was worded ... I think I may see you at 1600 soon

Great response, KeSetoKaiba - thanks!

I think that the general consensus is that a fairly talented chess player is capable of reaching 2000+ rating with enough practice and years of at least fairly active tournament play, without having to devote all of his free time to studying chess. Chess mastery on the other hand seems to require certain sort of obsession to the game, where it goes beyond being "just a hobby". 

Of course making general assumptions is flawed, since every individual is different and progression has a lot to do with the starting point. Someone starting young could become a master with just devoting couple hours a day few times a week, if playing actively on tournaments and having a coach. Someone starting adult will most likely never make it to the master level, and if they do, they probably devoted all of their free time to learning chess.

Everyone can reach up to 2000 with just studying, above that talent becomes a limiting factor

I used to think that 2000 might be possible, but I noticed that Agadmator, whom I'm sure most of you know, is not at that at any level: https://www.chess.com/stats/daily/chess/agadmator.  If someone like him, who talks well about chess, and spends all day studying it, can't get above 2000, it obviously takes a lot more than just raw enthusiasm and hard work.

I personally think 2000 is the max a casual player can expect to obtain, and I know many that are capable of achieving it with only 1 game per week. Though I must admit I know people who achieved titles playing just once a week and never training. Exceptional talent solves everything.

An adult with a job is totally different of course. Maybe some people are thinking of a beginner who is a kid.

But you say you're 1400 as an adult, ok.

1600 is very realistic IMO.

And I think there's a lot of potential for long term improvement...

I haven't studied seriously in years, but for many years now I'll solve a few tactics or analyze an endgame to pass some time when the mood strikes me. I'll follow 1 or 2 top tournaments a year... when an opening is interesting to me I'll go on chessgames.com and look through a bunch of games (over the course of a month or something).

So doing relatively very little, I've gained maybe 200 points over... I don't know, 5 years or something. Sure this is agonizingly slow if you want to improve, but I'm just saying:

 - If you stay interested in chess

 - If you're willing to consider new ways of playing / change your habits

 - If you look at high quality stuff 

Then you're going to keep improving. The main thing is staying interested and curious IMO.