How easy is it to become a GM?

It may be true that the older you get the more limited your chess potential and that at 25 you are too old to become a GM, but if that is true then it is not for that reason.

By that "logic" nothing that has not already been done could ever be done.  We would not have had, for example, the 4-minute mile.  And if you had asked around in 1960, no-one could have named anyone that had been to the moon and back.

"0110001101101000" seems to be one of the more rational and sensible commenters on these forums, but perhaps was having a bad day when this was posted?

More likely is that no-one capable of becoming a grandmaster at a more mature age is inclined to put in the enormous effort that is needed.

Could you site a source to support this rather bizarre claim? Requirement? 

first up, i'm not ya bud. please don't confuse me with your friend. we're really not.

but i can't remember the OP being offensive, rude or otherwise derogatory towards anyone?

as i said, possibly a little naive in his expectation, but he has said 15 years at 5 hrs a day. he's put some thought into it. if that's his ambition, regardless of how realistic that aim is, that's his prerogative. it should not be open to ridicule.

but your opening retort, to his obvious so called trolling, is 

"Can't tell if the OP is trolling or stupid. "

well if you can’t tell, then why call him stupid? and if you were not trolling yourself, the correct reply would have been “can’t tell if the OP is being serious?”

you chose a carefully worded and deliberately inflammatory reply. no reasonable person would not have been offended by that comment.

so get back in your box bud. and show some humility.

@pluggin-A-hole....feeding trolls will stop when you stop waging wars on a non-existent enemies. Read as "not gonna happen"

Not easy. The the thing is you have much less time than a kid. Try to reach a small goal first (e.g. reaching 1800), and you will have a clue.

OIC!!

I wish I had this "problem"

I don't mean it as a reason (my reason was that young brains are physiologically different). It's not a reason, but it's a useful observation. Not every adult is working full time with a family. Some are rich, have lots of free time, and try their hand at chess mastery. There have been blogs in the past of adults with plenty of time trying for 2200, and e.g. I believe Rex Sinquefield has multiple coaches.

People who think the only difference is kids have a lot of free time are mostly mistaken IMO. As I pointed out Carlsen went to public school (that's 8 hours out of his day) and IIRC said he "only" studied about 4 hours a day.

Capablanca hardly studied at all, it is said. Nor apparently did Morphy.

They both studied. Morphy read the books available at the time, and I've forgotten the specifics on Capa, but the idea that they never studied is more of a myth.

Bronstein said he was sure Capa had studied and analyzed ad nauseam positions that could lead to favourable endgames.

From what I've read (don't remember where) it said Morphy only had about half a dozen books. He did keep abreast of the major chess magazine of the time, apparently, though.

These are some great statistics and an insightful article. I didn't know GMs were that rare. I guess that this may not be the game for me. It's quite sad that when you get older in life things start becoming so unachievable. I feel so empty. I feel like so much of my life has been wasted. Everything becomes so much harder to learn as you age. I once wondered if I could become a concert pianist if I started training at 20, and got the same sort of responses as here. You only think of the possibilities, and what you could have achieved when its too late. Such is life. It's sad, I was actually really starting to enjoy the game. Even just the aesthetics of the pieces and the board. The creativity mixed with logic. It's a wonderful game. I hope you all achieve the goals you set for yourself. 

So first you get bitter that I said bud(not sure why, I didn't say you were my bestest friend in the world lol, its simply a nicety, it wasn't meant to be derogatory), and then you call me bud(I'm assuming you meant it to be derogatory towards me? Again, not sure why.)  That's odd, but okay.  And for the record, "cant tell if trolling or stupid" is an old internet meme that apparently went over your head... and it wasn't THAT harsh, jeez.  I didn't wish death on the guy.  

But regardless, none of this really matters.  So cheers.  

I think quitting is the likely outcome if one's motivation comes primarily from a desire for some sort of title. Many of us find enough appeal in the prospect of involvement with "a wonderful game" where there is "creativity mixed with logic."

I still can't tell if anything you say is truthful or if you're just trolling (you're still probably trolling), but on the off-chance you actually believe everything you just typed, you should really re-evaluate your life (I mean that in a positive way).  You can enjoy chess and not be the best in the world.  You can enjoy music and not be a premier pianist.  Magnus Carlsen loses games.  Leonard Bernstein missed notes.  You don't have to be titled to appreciate the aesthetics in chess.  Unfortunately life isn't fair, and the concept of talent is very real.  Very few of us are born with it.  Its up to you to find what makes you happy, and if the game of chess itself doesn't make you happy, then yes....stop playing chess.  Otherwise keep playing and keep studying if you value the game as well as improving at it.  

To Fixing_A_Hole,

Thanks for that response, your philosophy makes a lot of sense in your last post. By the way I was never gonna report you to chess.com. I was just a bit upset, and frustrated with myself yesterday, and I reacted angrily.