So how long till I become a chess master?

So many members ask this so often that there should be an FAQ.  Failing which, of course, there's the bunny.  Almost all the answers on these topics were from non masters.  So here the time travelling bunny brings you 10 years back when IM @andrewmartin went beast mode answering this question in no unclear terms.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/your-questions-answered-by-andrew-martin7

Raymon Hello Andrew.  I am a grade 10 student in highschool from Canada. I would like to become a Grandmaster when I grow up. I have some questions:

Are there any chess programs you recommend which I could use to practice chess?
Are there any good books that you recommend?
Are there any special schools where I can learn to become a grandmaster?

Thanks

Hi Raymon,There are many chess programs which can help you with your game. I use Fritz and Rybka, but that is my personal choice. Each of these programs allows you to play with them on different levels and they help you to improve by explaining your mistakes. There are more books on chess than most other topics, so again this will come down to a question of taste.

Students of mine have found books by Jeremy Silman to be of particular use to them in getting better.  If you are into puzzles try the 'Ultimate Chess Puzzle Book' by GM John Emms. Look for books which are well-written and explain things clearly. Avoid books with huge amounts of analysis because they just don't get read.

The path to Grandmastership is long and hard; there is no simple way unless you have phenomenal talent. However, there is a great deal of satisfaction to be gained from hard work, whether you make it or not. The best school to learn about chess is the school of actually playing tournaments and analysing your games carefully after each event. You should go over your games YOURSELF first, making notes and then check these notes afterwards using an engine. This is time-consuming, but I assure you it is the most effective way. After that you can get coaching and advice on your conclusions from a stronger player if you wish.  This long and winding road is not for everyone.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/your-questions-answered-by-andrew-martin12

Chess.com member DAVAD265 Andrew, I am hoping you can help me out. I am a 44 year old man who never played Chess in his life until a few years ago. What I want to know is: what can I read or watch etc to become world class?  I am willing to sit down and watch a training video or read books, whatever it takes.  I want to be able to play a strong game, to be a sometime winner with higher ranked players, to be feared, to boldly go where I have yet to go, and to drive my enemies before me!  ;-)

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

My advice is to forget about becoming world-class. At your age it simply isn't going to happen. It's unrealistic and even quite impossible. Your main barrier is your age. Your second barrier is your talent; to release the talent if it is there would take a level of energy a middle-aged man has long since lost. Your third barrier is time. Do you really have the time to study chess to the exclusion of everything else?

What you must concentrate on is enjoying playing and studying chess, not results. The game will then open up its secrets to you and you will realise your potential. If you continue wanting to be 'world class', you will soon become demoralised at the apparent lack of progress and give up. 

of course this honesty resulted in a backlash.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/a-response-to-andrew-martin

Here's a bonus gem:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/your-questions-answered-by-andrew-martin3

Tom Terrific Hi, Andrew, I'm in my 50's. I've been fascinated by the game of chess since my teens. Perhaps I'm imagining things; but I've always intuitively sensed an inner poetry to the game, and my principal interest in chess is not to win games, but to discover and appreciate this inner beauty. When I was younger, I thought that discovery of this "essence" or spirit of the game would naturally lead to faster learning of openings and more quickly becoming a winning player; but, while this intuitively seems likely, these are no longer principal concerns.

My inability to find any help in this quest, combined with my inability to make headway on my own, has led me to abandon the game multiple times, only to return later, sometimes after years, drawn again by this hidden "something." I've tried to get some help from books; but books quickly become incomprehensible. The enunciate principles, and then violate them without adequately explaining why. They may say why such-and-such a move is important in the situation; but what they never explain, and what they should explain, is the thought process that led them to question the fundamental principle they just violated - how the values were weighed. I know that the actual weighing of values is something one learns over time; yet the initial starting point should be explained. The author should say, "I know the rule says we aren't supposed to (put the knight here, move this pawn, or whatever). The reason the rule doesn't apply in this case is ..."

The spirit behind each piece, each line, each opening, and the game itself is my objective. It's more than philosophy; for lack of a better word, it's a question of poetry. All the books are written as if the poetry of chess could be reduced to merely its component elements; but, as everyone knows, poetry is much more than that. I want to see the soul of chess. Can you advise me?

Hi Tom. I don't know what you are on about!  Regards, Andrew.

Update:  Some people have been unhappy at Andrew's answer to this last question.  As Andrew has stressed in a comment below, he geniunely didn't understand what Tom was asking and his reply was meant to be humourous.  Nevertheless, we offer our sincere apologies if anyone, particularly Tom, was offended.

the point being, don't ask if ...

I hope there is a chess club for bunnies in heaven.

we make our heaven & hell here on earth - there is no better or worse place

I wonder if becoming a cheese master would be easier. I mean, it sounds close.

Bonus question - Can a bunny do a hop, skip, and a jump?

After reading the last question 3 times, I think Andrew's answer is pretty reasonable.

The short answer is No. Most people cannot become Candidate Master, let alone GM. Forget it. If people are not coming up to you and calling you the next GM by age 12, then you're a regular player, and nothing wrong with that. Titles, schmitles. You can make more money doing to stock market than chess. Cry your way to the bank over not being a bigshot in the chess world. Or sponsor the next hundred tournaments, better yet.

How many Candidate Masters are there compared to FM's, IM's and GM's? Those would be some interesting numbers. 

Anyway, asking if you can become world class at the age of 44, never having played chess is (with all due respect) pretty stupid. I myself started playing chess at the age of 29, and yes, i too got fascinated with ideas of reaching a higher level. I still am. But i started with the more modest idea of becoming an FM. Nowadays i toned it down to becoming a CM. Somehow, i think attaining a CM title in my case is not an impossible goal. Difficult, yes. I will probably die trying

My friends on hearing I play chess half-way decently ask me if I am a chess master, then ask whether I go to tournaments or whether I plan to become a chess master. No, no, and no. They think if you play a lot you become a master. Chess is like a measure of I.Q., you are not going to get smarter by reading books, trust me I have known extremely serious players that read books all day long, and I beat them because I see the tactics and grab their knight or checkmate them. Bam-wow! But then somebody comes along and sees the tactics faster than I do and eats my lunch, all day long here on chess.com.

Yeah well, there will always be somebody out there who gets the better of you. Even Carlsen gets his *ss handed to him at times. But that doesn't mean you can't reach a certain goal.

You should be a master after something like 100 games. Maybe 200 if you are a bit slow.

definetly not

It takes at least 500 games to become a master.

Makes me wonder if it was our own ontological tom that asked the question 

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-are-we

But if games are all we're doing,  then 500 isn't enough to rack up the mythical or otherwise 10k hours required to be an expert. 

looks like Silman has covered this topic too & mentioned Andrew Martin

https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm

"IM Andrew Martin was here before me and doing a great job. He got a similar though less realistic letter. If memory serves (and it rarely does nowadays), the guy was 21 years old with a very low rating and wanted to know how long it would take him to be grandmaster. Andrew was insulted since he had worked extremely hard for many years to get to where he is now (an IM and a highly regarded teacher and writer), and the tone of the letter made it seem as if getting a chess title was a piece of cake.

Andrew made it clear that the gentleman writing that article would never get the grandmaster title. And, as is often the case, a zillion anonymous internet know-it-alls (or was it two zillion?) screamed that he had crushed the man’s dream. Apparently those no-names don’t like truth, so they (in effect) wanted Andrew to lie. He left Chess.com as a result of abuse from ignorant trolls."

If you are beginning with running at age 50 you will never win the New York marathon.

Also you will never become the best 50+ runner, if you are beginning to late.

But in chess there are some people which believe that there is a possibility to become GM ..

Unbelievible. 

You might become the best +80 though, easily, since the others will have died or blown their knees. But yeah, chess is an evil little game for the late starter

says the guy thats played 12000 games here

Perhaps the moment someone beats another in a chess game,  the former goes back feeling like a genius.  And rules are different for the genius. 

Just like we see so many posters on the forums here equating chess to intelligence, in real life, people have explained to me how they're not stupid because they play chess, to support other illogical statements. 

Nice thread.

The bunny could only nod blankly