I'm 29 my goal is to reach one time in my life 2200 FIDE ELO. Is it possible?

Of course it is possible! Everything is possible! Just train hard-against me! Ha ha!

@cyboo Do u think its realistic?

Possibly of interest:
"... the NM title is an honor that only one percent of USCF members attain. ..." - IM John Donaldson (2015)
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
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
100 Chess Master Trade Secrets by Andrew Soltis
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708094523/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review916.pdf
Reaching the Top?! by Peter Kurzdorfer
"... On the one hand, your play needs to be purposeful much of the time; the ability to navigate through many different types of positions needs to be yours; your ability to calculate variations and find candidate moves needs to be present in at least an embryonic stage. On the other hand, it will be heart-warming and perhaps inspiring to realize that you do not need to give up blunders or misconceptions or a poor memory or sloppy calculating habits; that you do not need to know all the latest opening variations, or even know what they are called. You do not have to memorize hundreds of endgame positions or instantly recognize the proper procedure in a variety of pawn structures.
[To play at a master level consistently] is not an easy task, to be sure ..., but it is a possible one. ..." - NM Peter Kurzdorfer (2015)
http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2015/11/16/book-notice-kurzdorfers-reaching-the-top.html
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Reaching-the-Top-77p3905.htm
"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-fight-stereotypes-using-chess-in-rural-mississippi/
http://brooklyncastle.com/
https://www.chess.com/article/view/don-t-worry-about-your-rating
https://www.chess.com/article/view/am-i-too-old-for-chess
https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-can-older-players-improve

It's not impossible.

That's a start.

you havent mentioned your current rating. if you are FIDE 1800 now, its a radically different question then if you were say 1200.

if you are 1200 or below, a female of age close to 30 has a very low chance, possibly as bad as being an 1800 male in his 20's trying to reach GM.

but in terms of possibility , you never know. its just a matter of realizing 1. the personal sacrifice on your part will be immense 2.even if you do everything right, it just might not happen.

It wasn't for me, LOL, I suck donkey balls.  On the other hand, I was a distinguished attorney, and am now a distinguished gardener and fisherman.  I will never be a GM in chess, but I have been referred to by the fair sex as a GM in pleasure.

Is it possible to reach 2200 Fide without heavy opening preparations? 

I dont know at which level the heavy preparations gets very important, maybe it is at Fm-level 2300? 

you sure can, but only if you play in a specific style that leads you get away with it. however, if you are already fghting agaisnt the clock trying to become some late-life (for chess i mean) master, i dont recommend, you look for exception within exception.

Nice post.

 I like this one too

You can reach 2200 with 3 hours' work per day after say 4-5 years.

Not however by doing just tactics.

You need to do systematic work on all parts of the game (which is not easy to manage all by yourself- you will probably need to hire a coach), and playing at least 80 rated OTB games annually. Online games do not count.

"Heavy" is relative.

It's no exaggeration to say what you or I might call heavy Kasparov wouldn't even call a useful introduction.

The best way to improve (any skill) also tends to be the most boring, because there are no tricks. In chess you (ideally) improve all parts of your game, yes, that includes openings. And yes, a 2200's opening preparation would likely seem very heavy to the OP

Do you have tuna?

If so, @ilovesmetuna will make it happen.

Otherwise you're out of luck.

chess is incredibly forgiving on distribution of strengths. until you start approaching strong master level. its amazing how many people know so few endings or so few openings and reach lower master level.

having said that, its not usually wise intentionally going for that route. there is kind of a strange RARER talent being able to get away with stuff like that, then merely reaching master the "balanced way". I am actually one of those unusual masters.

my school coach disdained my choice of openings (esp my 1.b4) despite me being very successful at it in my early days. he said trying to vindicate his position that later down the line i will plateau and need to switch to more real stuff. well i puffed up my cheeks and 1000 points later, i still play only weird stuff and 1.b4 is my main opening. in fact, some of my best games vs GM have been with it (getting a winning position vs ruifeng li 2 years ago, and virtually getting my first gm scalp with it last year both OTB of course)

similarly, i always looked down on chess books  and coaches as a scholastic player. i liked a more osmosis approach to the game. in my (somewhat but not entirely flawed) way of thinking, its better to learn to progressing with your chess knowledge organically to develop a stronger intuition. IF i can "Get" and "Feel " why a position is better or worse without axioms or dogmas, when i do decide to formally study, it would be like  breeze. due to this, i practically got to 2100 without even a basic notion of simple king pawn vs king endgames. and got to 2200 by only reading 1 silman book plus some opening books as occasional reference on what i played. in my defense though, i didnt grew up with money for my family to pay for a coach and books were ten times less fun than exploring all chessmaster software had to offer.

did this work for me ? yes. would i recommend most scholastic players to approach it my way? absolutely not. im pretty sure my kind of methods only work for a very small number of players. i dont know if it was talent or teenage rebellious stubborness that made it work for me, but most people benefit, from dogma and routine. Esp, if you want to climb ratings as fast as possible like some of these pseudo-prodigies do, it might be better to start the standard way . it might safe you  from headaches (or at least save your 50$ an hour coach that teaches 9 year olds you must create two weaknesses in the endgame to win, from needing an aspirin).

 1.b4 is objectively silly though. Avoiding a loss after bad openings results may give you some bragging rights, but at the end of the day you're scoring worse than you would with a proper repertoire.

I remember Rapport playing some ridiculous thing, I remember thinking it was as bad as 1.g4, and after losing for 40 some moves his 2500 rated opponent blundered and eventually Rapport won the game. Ok, so he's 2700, but he's still an idiot

it objectively gives me an even game on my terms. nothing silly about that. besides the positions im getting arent " im worse the whole game and then i swindle". its more like , its evenish most of the game and then my familiarity with these structures lets me snatch a middlegame advantage.

In ICCF apparently 1.b4 is a forced loss (at least that's what I was told), so I can't imagine it getting an even game OTB against decent prep. Obviously no one is going to refute 1.b4 OTB, I just mean white will be worse.

I don't know much theory for 1.b4, I assume most people don't. I wonder what you play, because after 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Nf6 3.Bxe5 Bxb4 black's next 5 moves are pretty much automatic, 0-0, Re8, d5, c5, Nc6

Obviously this isn't the only line for white, but I assume black gets a nice edge however white deviates if black knows some theory.

0.00 at very high depth in those "main lines". white's continuations are mostly just as easy at first.  i dont know much about correspondence chess, to be honest. i dont see how that affects regular time controls.

they are some lines given by opening books on it, that give black some miniscule -0.1 or something like that but any master worth his salt will likely think the engine might be slightly overestimating something. for example, , they are some lines were black plays a QID formation and white gets an advanced b5 pawn. the engine for some reason slightly dislikes it for white, but praxis prefers white ever so slightly because of way more endgame chances.

you also have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from such data in correspondence play. 1.nc3 for example is extremely successful in correspondence, more so than say 1.nf3 from the data i did look and many theoreticians defending lines which seemed to equalize (like 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 d4 stuff) with good results.  i am a big 1.nc3 lover myself but even i woudnt argue its superiority from such data alone.

IIRC this guy was claiming a few years ago that it was refuted in ICCF play. @FirebrandX

Ironically it looks like he may have been using his engines here too  His account was recently closed.

I'm just saying some 1.b4 nerd may have used an engine more than you to prepare stuff. I find it hard to believe it's 0.00, but I understand what you're saying about practical play and having experience while your opponent is probably in unfamiliar territory.

oh the likelyhood of that is quite small.  besides you dont just play one card. will my opponent prepare that deeply for 3 4 or 5 moves just as unusual? or say you play a more universal style ,will he prepare agaisnt your mainstream openings , your sidelines and your surprise weapon?

people that play weird stuff rarely only play just one of them for a very practical reason. its actually somewhat too easy to prepare agaisnt you otherwise.  you play the whole roulette to make it a knightmare to prepare agaisnt. of course this has the disadvantage that you must know a lot of other stuff inside out. its a trade off.

imagine playing someone that can play the top 8 of whites first moves half proficiently, would you prepare a 20 move deep engine line on 1.b4 on the 15% chance he plays it? (or take the extreme example of someone like IM welling a creative player who has played 19 of the first 20 legal moves in serious OTB games)

Oh ok, so you're not playing 1.b4 every game. That makes more sense.

I knew a guy who always played as black 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6

My first game against him I got an equal position, was outplayed in the mid game, but we eventually drew.

So of course I go home and memorize a few deep lines. Too bad I didn't get to play him again.