ELO ranking after 600 games

After 600 rapid games 15|10 and after analysing losses you should be rated 2000.

If you want a high rating you need a good opening repertoire, tons of tactics, and heavy study of endgames. You can spam off 10k games and be rated the same as you are today if you don't employ some method of learning and improvement.

Elon musk ranking after 600 games 0

That is blatantly impossible.

@5

Very well possible e.g.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/crossed-2100-rapid-first-time-ever

The players in that topic were going from 1700 or 1800 to 2000+ in 600 games
The OP is talking about starting from scratch (current Elo 700)

@7

Scratch to 1500 is a matter of blunder checking.
1500 to 2000 is hard work, mainly tactics from analysing lost games and endgames.
It is fair to assume that the poster did not do it optimally.

Here is another example: 2185 rating after 485 games:
https://www.chess.com/stats/live/rapid/littlemanpaul

Magnus Carlsen learned to play chess at age 5, started to study very seriously (and attend tournaments) at age 8, and crossed 2000 at age 10.

It took him 2 years of very serious work (and a grand total of 5 years) to do it.

If you look at other kid wonders, you'll find similar (or worse) stats.

@9

Classical over the board is slower:
less than 1 game per day, time to travel to tournaments, no tournaments all the time.
We are talking rapid online here.
Besides chess.com Glicko converges faster than FIDE elo.

Even over the board classical FIDE elo:
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/44599790/chart 
From 1171 in March 2018 to 1955 in March 2020, 133 games.
This guy reached 2540 over the board classical FIDE elo in less than 600 games.

As it was pointed out before, this kid already had a FIDE rating in 2017. And that's the date when he started playing international tournaments, not the date when he learned chess.

And even if we look at the period you picked, that's 2 years, with almost certainly a lot of hard work.

Each example you bring up is worse than the last.

This is because miraculous fast improvement doesn't exist. Getting better at chess is a long long long road. No, no on can get to 1500 just by "blunder checking", and no one can get from beginner to 2000 in a few months.

@11

"this kid already had a FIDE rating in 2017" ++ Only 1171 in december from 9 games.

"with almost certainly a lot of hard work" ++ Yes of course: hard and smart work.

"miraculous fast improvement" ++ There is no miracle: it is the reward for hard and smart work.

"Getting better at chess is a long long long road." ++ Even longer when doing it wrongly.

"No, no on can get to 1500 just by "blunder checking""
++ Yes. Most get stuck despite courses, exercises, coaches and whatnot because of blundering.

"no one can get from beginner to 2000 in a few months"
++ In 1 year, but with hard & smart work.

It's fairer to assume that nobody does it optimally to begin with. It's part of the learning. So while I agree it is of importance, and that is becoming clearer to me after two months of rapid, it doesn't seem like the whole story from this perspective. After 319 rapid games my openings are much more solid, and flexible. Not by studying openings but by reviewing my games and finding out how to play some. Now blunders seem like the next step. I can be impetuous, and even a little wild. Sometimes it works. I understand it will work less and less as my rating increases and I meet stronger opponents.

The thing is the OP is asking a straight question, and looking to orient themselves in their progress. Where are they on the curve? Talking about the optimal and somewhat gifted people at the top of the curve isn't answering the question.

@13

"It's fairer to assume that nobody does it optimally to begin with."
++ Some come close, e.g. the Polgar sisters, especially Judith, the youngest sister, when experience with her elder sisters helped.

"It's part of the learning."
++ There is a difference between learning chess and learning how to learn chess.
Most learn to play chess by trial and error: play and analysis of losses.
Most learn to learn chess by trial and error too.
They try something and then something else. That slows them down.

"Not by studying openings but by reviewing my games" ++ That is the correct way.

"Now blunders seem like the next step." ++ Blunder elimination is the first step.
You can know 25 moves deep opening theory, have 4000+ tactics puzzle rating, know Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual by heart, but if you blunder your queen, then you still lose.

"I can be impetuous, and even a little wild." ++ 'Sit on your hands' - Tarrasch
'When you see a good move, look for a better one' - Lasker

"the OP is asking a straight question, and looking to orient themselves in their progress"
++ Fair enough, but the answer of what is possible is the boogey.
The vast majority of players makes no progress at all, keeps playing too impetuous, keeps blundering, wastes time on opening theory, passively watches videos with no benefit, messes up any endgame etc.
'He evidently has an extraordinary good memory, for he always makes the same mistakes' - Steinitz

Judit started playing at the age of 4, and crossed 2000 at the age of 10. That's six years, not one.

About the opening poster: after 3 months a rating of 700 is not bad.

As you can see it's not easy to quantify or predict. It would be interesting to see that stat

(@Martin-Stahl is that a possibility, to get a population graph of number of games vs Elo?)

If you go to the Leaderboard for Rapid there are 24,464,747 members up to and including 700 rating (yes, I counted them), and 11,368,500 between 700 and 2000. So the good news is that at 700 you have more than passed the average rating after only 3 months. The other good news is that there is plenty of room for improvement. Check for blunders before you move. Do puzzles.

The truth is, learning to play chess is a long affair. After 140 rapid games played here, as many played elsewhere, plus another hundred unrated games always there ( in all, more than 400 ), starting from about 1000 I am still at about 1250. And I still produce blunders in industrial quantities, not to mention the various chess nonsense that punctuates my games.

It takes constant commitment, a lot of free time, a well-organized study, the ability to close oneself in a "bubble" impenetrable from the outside when playing, and if I may say so, even a fresh mind, free of worries and thoughts.

Even if it were true that getting to 1500 is just a matter of avoiding blunders, the huge problem is that the ability not to get distracted even for half a second over the course of a game (because that's what causes the hated Blunder) is not at all a "small" mental discipline as tygxc claims, but even this alone takes a lot to develop.

Quantity is not quality. Your rating will reflect how well you played, not how often.

Thanks all for all your responses. I guess like @GumboStu pointed I am looking for a statistic if possible to find. I am trying to see where my learning curve is. Now, I do understand there are super smart people that can reach incredible ratings. I guess I don't consider myself dumb... but I am not a genius. I also have limited time to play and learn, I wish I had more time to dedicate to is...I have several other things going on in my life that prevents it. guess the statistic I am looking for is not available. Thanks for taking the time of providing your opinion. Cheers!