Do you have to start chess at a young age to be any good?

Here is my situation: I am 17 and got serious about chess a week ago, not saying I just found out what it is and am immediately going try hard mode, I know what chess it and have for a little bit. I been playing a lot since then and notice I am definitely better than when I started and there is just more to go. I also don't want to become a grandmaster, mainly because I don't think I can. Though I want to become a "National Master" (Which I want feedback if it's even a feasible achievement), I have a study plan of 1 hour puzzles, 3 rapid 30 minute games, 30 minutes I analyze those games, then I study 2 master games a day like for example I was learning how to play the Ruy Lopez opening better so I watched a few master games including that opening, I spend an hour studying openings on Monday's and Tuesdays, middlegames on Wednesday's and Thursday's, and endgames Friday's and Saturday's while on Sunday is usually just misc., and I also spend a considerable amount of time reading chess books. I truly have a passion for this game and I realized it kind of is all I think about that may be sad but I swear I ain't a loner chess nerd, I do have friends though I also have a lot of free time. There is a problem I only learned how to play play chess maybe like a year ago I remember sitting down in the 9th grade and my 300 elo friend kept beating me because I didn't know how the pieces move but now I just turned 17 I know how to play and don't consider myself terrible terrible but is National Master a feasible goal if I put in time and dedication, with a mix of passion into this for a long time supposable the next few years of my life, also I ain't looking for the "why spend so much time on a board game" I just really like chess and want to get good, I also want to beat a few people in real life and I can see chess being a actual lifestyle for me because I love the laid back atmosphere of a group of people playing chess, thinking, and playing good moves and having fun. 

It's great to try out different things when you are young. No one really knows how far you can go. You probably don't even need to make it to national master to beat everyone in your school.

If you really enjoy the game, a relatively small period of concentrated study and work should pay pretty quick rewards in terms of who you can beat and your rating.

NM is a perfectly feasible long-range objective for a 17-year-old.

Even an international title is still possible (IM or GM).

A place in the world's Top Ten might have already slipped beyond your grasp, though...

Thanks for this. Yeah all I think about is chess which is weird because I find myself zoning out of a conversation with my friends because I am thinking about chess, even though I ain't that good we all start somewhere and I aspire to get really good, because having a chess title like National Master seems like one of the coolest accolades to have

I was playing the Sicilian Najdorf in over-the-board rated tournaments 52 years ago.

For the most part, yes.

You definitely can, but if you plan on attending like college and stuff it’ll become much harder to study chess while also keeping up with work. I would probably say your time frame is optimistic but your goal is 100% possible

Some good players in history of chess, started playing chess after the age of sixteen years old

Who won? Was he as strong a player as the Argentine Miguel Najdorf?

More seriously, yes it is perfectly possible for you to become a National Master. Some people seem to have an innate "gift" for chess and they turn into great players very rapidly. If you are such a very rare person you would be able to become a top GM, but those equally-gifted individuals who started as small children will keep you from becoming world champion.

No. When I was at a young age most of the people I played were crap.

Mikhail Botvinnik learned to play chess when he was gifted a home-made set at age 12. He quickly became devoted to the game, and displayed such a great aptitude that he was allowed to join the Petrograd Chess Assembly although he was three years too young for membership. At age 14, he was one of the players Capablanca played at a simul after the famous 1925 Moscow tournament. He managed to draw a complicated rook ending and Capablanca predicted he would be an elite player.

Viktor Korchnoi's father taught him the game at age seven but he never studied, played competitively or took lessons until the siege of Leningrad was lifted (1943, age 12). Perhaps he had less raw talent than Botvinnik, as he didn't win the Soviet Junior Championship until 1947 (age 16).

Although neither of these players were among "the best kids" who "were winning the world under-10 (and similar) championships" they somehow managed to play in 10 world championship matches.

However the OP is 17, so you might consider:

Evgeni Vasiukov learned to play at 15 and took up the game more seriously at age 17. Not really a "prodigy" he didn't become a GM until age 28 and never won a Soviet championship (a lot of tough competition there in the late 1950s and 60s) but was Moscow champion six times, and was World Senior Chess Champion in 1995 (age 62). At his peak he was the #11 rated player in the world.

Ye Jiangchuan didn't learn to play until he was 17, but mastered the game quickly and became Chinese national champion at age 20 (1981) and won that title five more times. He was the second Chinese player to earn the GM title and the first to post a rating over 2600. He cut back playing in his early 30s to become head coach of both China's men's and women's teams and head of the Beijing Chess Club. His peak rating was 2684, and highest rank was world # 17.

James Altucher, a National Master also didn't start until late 17's

Does being #11 or #17 rated player in the world make someone a "strong GM"?

Could it be possible that someone with an extraordinary talent that leads them to quickly master chess would also be able them to easily master other similar games? Does someone who knows how to play chess automatically pick up any game you label as "similar" in a snap?

Where did you get your information that Ye "played chess-like games before"? Might it just be an assumption you make to confirm your opinion?

Starting chess at a very young age would be great as it increases your thinking ability and helps you to also in accuracy and strategical aspects. It also futher helps in memorization and calculating all the possible senarios in a bit of a second.

You can go to any tournament and see young players doing the same sort of research into their opponents, yet these players are not, and likely never will be, strong masters. There are innate talents involved in top-level chess play. Starting early and having good coaching are a great help, but ruling out any possibility of an individual surpassing those who had a big head start is not reasonable.

I honestly don't think It matters when you start. Heres some advice for ya TC. Take your dream and increase it tenfold as you aren't dreaming big enough. You're so much more capable than you think you are and I encourage you to change that way of thinking you currently hold. Telling yourself you'll never get anywhere will only reiterate that fact. Don't let people tell you that "it's too late." And don't tell yourself you will never reach GM. You're literally using yourself against yourself...like dude. You've got this. Study the game and continue to be passionate about it. People such as Elon Musk, and Magnus Carlson are special for a reason. These people didn't follow societies norms and grew successful because they didn't let people tell them they couldn't do something. So I don't care if you're 15, 40 or 80. I truly believe, with enough time dedicated to something. One can grow and accomplish incredible things. You'd better get some thick skin and learn to prioritize yourself before others, because if you can't learn to say no to others you'll never make it to NL, let alone anything else. Anyway, give yourself more credit, and stay passionate. Can't wait to see you become a GM one day. You definitely have what it takes.

Yes, Ye was a good Chinese Chess player attending the Institute of Sport in Beijing when at age 17 the director of his department asked if he would like to learn Western chess and represent the school at the students' World Cup. He got a little training from an expert in European chess, learned a few opening lines starting only with 1. g3 or 1....g6, and had significant success, earning a rating of 2265.

This example, and you example of Kasparov playin Shogi, raises an interesting question. If two games have different pieces that have different moves, different boards, different rules how would having a few years of memorizing opening sequences and being able to quickly look up games featuring those positions make someone an expert on another game? Your proposition that this availability of information from an early age is a requirement for the development of a strong GM would seem to mean that the expert player from one game would have NO chance of performing well vs a strong master of the other game.

My comment to the OP (who is NOT a complete beginner) that should he be a one-in a-million talent he could become a strong GM seems to be buttressed by these examples of extremely gifted players being able to do remarkably well (with little training) in the new enterprise.

No not really bro. You can read as many books as u want but if u don't have a tactical mind it ain't gonna do u any good.

Strong Openings don't matter. Its just the first step to set up your middle game to have a strong finish. Its how it ends that matter.