Possible to get GM without being a child prodigy?

If that's all it took?

Are you serious? 6 hours of practice every day for 8 years is like what... 17.000 hours of practice? If the practice is even somewhat structured, I don't see any reason why one couldn't become a GM like that. The real question is, does anybody in their right mind have the time and willpower for that?

Most adult beginners have other things to attend to, like work and responsibilities. Kids usually do too, at least to some extent (like school, other hobbies, spending time with family and friends), but they have something that adults don't - years to practice. A kid starting to play chess at age of 7 can muster almost 10.000 hours of practice by the age of 18 simply by playing/studying 2 hours a day. Whereas someone starting at age of 22 would be 33 by then. So adults have to compensate that by studying and playing more hours each day. And frankly, majority of people don't have that much time - or willpower to spend all their time for such an unilateral goal like chess mastery. Most people who have the necessary dedication and willpower to pursue such feats usually decide to focus their attention towards getting a university degree, PhD or put a lot of effort in their work or a business. Something that is undoubtedly going to benefit you in the long run, whereas becoming a chess guru doesn't really open that many doors for your future.

So I don't think that the lack of examples is a good enough proof, that adults couldn't make it to master (or heck, even GM) level. It just doesn't seem like a reasonable goal for vast majority of people, and those who might have what it takes to do it, decide to spend their effort on something that contributes more to their lives.

Yes, that's a meager amount of practice.

And you only think you'd be a GM after it because you're terrible.

I didn't even check your rating or read the rest of your post.

I mean, shit, I wipe my ass 6 hours a day, every day. It's not going to make me a genius.

People do what they love all the time, but only a few are the very best.

Ok, so you were just trolling. Go on then.

There are plenty of examples of players who've gone from E2000-2100 to GM strength in their 20s. Off the top of my head, in England either GM Aaron Summerscale or GM Michael Hennigan did that in their 20s, and the Swedish GM Axel Smith (the author of 'Pump Up You Rating' and 'e3 Poison') went from something like E2150 in his early 20s to GM a few years ago.

As regards the old '10,000 hours training to achieve mastery', this is a claim from a flawed (and now debunked) study by Malcolm Gladwell. One of the problems is that Gladwell never really defined what 'mastery' represents, and also that his definitions can be greatly disputed. If memory serves me right, for chess Gladwell claimed that mastery represented achieving a rating of something like E1800, which as we know is not even close to grandmaster strength. In fact, E1800 is almost slap bang in the middle of the bell curve. Most players who work seriously on their chess and play tournaments regularly will easily achieve that after about 3,000-5,000 hours.

As for getting 17,000 hours of well-structured training (and playing) in at the age 22 onwards, clearly there's still no guarantee of reaching GM strength, but you're very likely to become a very strong, like E2200-E2300 or even IM title and E2400.

However, becoming a GM requires not only hard work, but also quite a lot of talent, because once you reach the far end of the bell curve, the law of diminishing returns kick in - at that level, it's not just about the right training and coaching and playing. It simply has to click into place in your mind as well. You may theoretically 'know your stuff', and still be unable to apply it. I've met E1600 players who have a better theoretical grasp of certain concepts than some E2250 players, but they just can't make use of it in their games.

I once spoke to an IM in his mid 20s, rated E2430, and asked him whether he was aiming for the GM title, and he said, 'To be perfectly honest, no. I know how much work is required to gain those last 70 Elo points, and achieve those three norms, and even if I put all that work in, there's no guarantee that I'll succeed.'

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

Of course there are never guarantees. My only issue was with how Farm_Hand called 17000 hours of practice a "meager" amount and belittleing it as something easy to do. I doubt that many of the grandmasters have even studied/played chess for 17000 hours.

I still think that any adult who could somehow manage to put that many hours in serious chess study, could reach any level. Emphasis on could. Doesn't mean that they all would, just like not every child prodigy makes it to GM either.

Taskinen: I understood what you meant, and I totally agree with your argument that 17,000 hours is a lot of study time. However, just as DeirdreSkye says, even if you put all that hard work in, it all has to click into place. Just hard work is not enough, however well it's structured and prepared.

With hard work for several years, you can.

I think getting 2000 is by reading books and tactics.

For example, you can be 2000 by knowing 6 major openings against King Indian Defense( Samisch, Four Pawn Attack, Classical etc)

But ya, majority of your 2000 opponents knows those as well.

So, how to win against them.? Need more precision in move order, more subtle understanding of positions etc. For example, in this opening, my opponent have pawn advantage in Queen side.  I will likely lose if I exchange all pieces. What do I do? I must take risks to attack his king in middle game or I will lose etc. 

And also, knowing basic rook endgame like Philidor and Lucena is not enough. Plan in middle game whether those endgame will be draw or win. There is a difference who predict lucena in 15 moves ahead vs 10 moves ahead.

You will never become a GM no average or above average does unless you have an IQ above 140 just enjoy like any other games or leave chess and stop dreaming

We need a GM to answer this.

“Air gets thin” exponentially as you rise in rating. A 1800 should score 3/4 against a 1600, and thus 15/16 against a 1400.

1-(.5^(d/100))? What if d is 0?

if you study chess 24/7 you might get there 

are you a mathmation ?

sorry for the spelling mistakes if theres some

No, I disagreed.

I get like this d=0

So, 0/100= 0

0.5^0 =1( any number with power 0 =1)

1-1=0

Answer is "0" .

+1

Should an 1800 score 0 against an 1800?