How easy is it to become a GM?

I know this is post isn't meant to be taken seriously, but for what it's worth: Karjakin still holds the record for the youngest to earn the GM title, (at 12 years, 7 months), and it still took him about 7 years of playing and coaching to reach it.

So, currently, the fastest a human can reach GM is around 7 years. And that's with professional coaching.

Karjakin's advice? "I tell people of all ages that if you’re ready to spend five or six or more hours a day on chess, you will have a good future."

first, you should achieve at VERY least 2000 rating to even consider this venture. Then it should take you 4-6 years.  this timeline goes from the "common wisdom" that a 2200 FIDE should take 2 years of full time study to become IM strength. so lets asssume 2 years + at most 2 years to go through the "easier" 2000->2200 jump. + 1-2 years to make the jump from 2400->2500.

this is to reach 2500 strength, but the GM title is more than just the strength, the fortunes of norms are fickle, and some  strong IM's take forever to get their last norm, or get norms, but struggle to touch 2500.

No man.   You were a different person then.   We all change.   That's the only only constant.   I used to be happy dumb yellow bunny,  then *bam* I turned an undead dumb bunny.  Now that consistent dumbness has led to my presidency.  Well so there's another constant right there, for me at least.  Well the point is, GMs smell funny, I think ...

It's also not true, as far as I'm aware. Reti said this of Spielmann in his book "Masters of the Chessboard":

"He learned to play while still a boy and was exhibited in public as a prodigy".

If you're not +2400 strength by the time you're 15, you probably aren't going to a world class player, and even more probably won't ever become a GM. Sure, there are people who developed later, but that's becoming rarer and rarer. 

Set your goals accordingly.

I give you lot GM in a few years time 

How true! Hats off to your wisdom, sir.

I know about a guy who was untitled, and had a rating of just 2285 at age 15.

He foolishly thought he could become a good player, but of course he did not achieve much.

His name, just in case, is Viswanathan Anand.

There’s this pervasive fallacy going on that chess is just hours invested. Oddly eough people say the same thing about mathematics. The anything is possible mentality will only hurt most in the long run. Play for yourself, not the rank.

most people aren't smart enough simple as that

Hail. 

all the 19th century guys played for fun

Interesting contrast from the responses here compared with those on another current thread.

There a few posters have even made the claim that with enough hard work and dedication a 40 year old newbie can become a chess grandmaster or even World Champion. Utterly clueless.

Why aim to be a GM? Why not a super GM? Why not World Champion? If all you care about are honours and glory, you are not in it for the right reasons and will probably tire and fade away.

Very true.

That's interesting. Anand earned his IM title when he was 15 in 1985. His rating was 2380 at that point. He was unrated in 1983. He clearly was on the right path. Just after he turned 16, he broke 2400. 

 The problem with Anand's rating being lower than his ability was that there weren't enough FIDE events for him to play in India. He would have earned his IM title even sooner if there'd been enough countries participating in the Asian Junior Championships in 1984.

How's this: I'll amend it to 2400 if you're 18 years old.

The point is the same. But in today's chess world, the likelihood of becoming world class if you're not over 2400 when you're 18 is diminishing. 

Quite a bit has changed since 1984. And Anand was +2500 by the time he was 17. Yes, my comment was perhaps slightly pessimistic, but if your counter example is Anand, perhaps I wasn't as pessimistic as I thought.

there was alot of 19th century players who died penniless and starving playing chess--I dont think it was fun for them