How should I get the GM title, I am an intermediate chess player. Please give me useful advice.

It is an interesting concept.  Basically, rewarding players for consistency.  You almost always get the Category title after you've broken the rating barrier due to the requirement to hit 5 norms for a given level.  But it is funny they went with the numbers for that and letters for the rating-based categories.

Everyone can claim anything, and I did not reveal any secret.

Currently there is no Indian 12yo player with a FIDE rating of 1598, unless FIDE is lying, that is.

That, and it would be extremely difficult for someone that is roughly 1600 FIDE to have a 500 online rapid rating after 50 games.  Even playing drunk or tired, they would simply play better than players at that level.

My favorite is still the "I hated chess but started playing in 2020 and now I'm 2400 in every time control on both LiChess and Chess.com without ever doing tactics and while working on my masters degree!"

That's me except I am rated 1900 rapid, 1800 blitz on this website. A couple of years ago I did not understand why would anybody play chess unless the electricity was cut or some event like that happened so you have to pass the time somehow. Those were the only times when I would play chess in the past (when electricity is cut off because of a storm or a similar situation) and now I like chess and play it all the time.

First thing you need to do is stop lying to urself. Ur are not 1598 FIDE. You will never become a GM. You started playing too late

There is a massive difference in 1900 rapid and 2400 rapid and going from a complete beginner (i.e. struggling to beat 500-level players) at 20 years old to 2400 in bullet, blitz, rapid, and classical (on the other site) at 22 years old while claiming you didn't learn tactics and were working on your masters degree is obviously asinine.

The moves in his games are very poor. Even if he were rated 1600 FIDE it would be an inaccurate rating.

He is a troll stop giving him attention

One of the biggest lies being told today is "you can be anything you want to be."  It isn't politically correct to state that some people are born with God-given talents that other people don't have.  Every great world class chess player (Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen etc.) have an almost inhuman ability to remember things that for most people is impossible.  A simple search on youtube is sufficient for anyone unbiased to recognize that fact.  For example:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMe-hvCwTRo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC1BAcOzHyY&t=78s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxvnEwvgfeI

Harry Nelson Pillsbury (December 5, 1872 – June 17, 1906) was asked before a blind simultaneous event to remember 30 words. After the four hour long simultaneous he was asked to repeat them.

Here are the 30 words of the list:

Antiphlogistine, Periosteum, Takadiastase, Plasmon, Ambrosia, Threlkeld, Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Micrococcus, Plasmodium, Mississippi, Freiheit, Philadelphia, Cincinatti, Athletics, No War, Etchenberg, American, Russian, Philosopy, Piet Potgleter's Rost, Salmagundi, Oomisillecootsi, Bangmanvate, Schlechter's Neck, Manzinyama, Theosophy, Catechism und Madjescomalops.

Pillsbury looked at the list for about one minute and had no trouble at all to recite the words after the simul. The next day he still remembered all the words.  I might add that he could recite the words backwards also.

I wish you the best in your chess career but don't believe the lie that anyone can be "anything he wants to be."  Chess is enjoyable just like other forms of entertainment but don't become depressed if you never accomplish such a goal of becoming a world class player.  Be happy with who you are and apply whatever talents you may have to the best of your ability. 

Mental ability is no different than physical.  We are all born different with different abilities.  Period.  

Yeah, I think too many people are not honest about this... or somehow don't realize it (even though it's obvious IMO).

Having said that, I think most people, if they start young and have organized systematic training, can be a GM... at least they would not be limited by their mental ability. More likely limited by their temperament.

This is where I disagree with many people.  I think it is possible for an adult beginner to become a master (even a GM) if you are discussing just mental faculties.  The biggest problems for most adults is not that their brains are somehow solidified (if that were the case, you would not be able to pick up a new language as you get older), but rather there are external factors that prevent such endeavors.  Specifically, work, bills, housework, family, etc.  If someone was independently wealthy, with no other responsibilities, and dedicated their time to systemic study of chess (coaching, practicing, playing, etc) starting at say, age 20, barring any mental handicaps, they would be able to improve greatly, even up to the master levels.  The caveats demonstrate why it does not happen very often: it requires a lot of things in place that are not common.  That is the big reason why kids are able to improve so fast (no responsibilities, a ton of disposable time, and the infinite bank of Mom & Dad).

Sure, I don't think 20 is too late for master. I mean, I started at age 18 (I'd played a few games but I didn't know rules like stalemate or en passant). Heck I didn't even know about forks or pins (I was really excited when I learned about those!). If I'd had 40 hours a week and structured training, I'd definitely be over 2200 FIDE. I don't know about GM, it's too far away for me to guess.

@68
"I think it is possible for an adult beginner to become a master" ++ Yes, maybe

"The biggest problems for most adults is not that their brains are somehow solidified"
++ This is the biggest problem. The adult brain is not as malleable. Lazlo Polgar stressed a young age and no talent required.

"if that were the case, you would not be able to pick up a new language as you get older"
++ Picking up a second or a third language is not that difficult as the first language helps. Nevertheless many adults fail to pick up a non-related foreign language, while young children learn that language easily.

"Specifically, work, bills, housework, family, etc.  If someone was independently wealthy, with no other responsibilities, and dedicated their time to systemic study of chess (coaching, practicing, playing, etc) starting at say, age 20, barring any mental handicaps, they would be able to improve greatly, even up to the master levels."
++ No, that is not true. I know some rich chess enthousiasts, who hired master players as their personal one on one coach and spent time and money, but did not nearly get to master level.

"That is the big reason why kids are able to improve so fast (no responsibilities, a ton of disposable time, and the infinite bank of Mom & Dad)."
++ There are many adults with no responsibilities a ton of disposable time (prison inmates, people with a disablility or long term hospitalised...), who do not get anywhere in chess.

You could have just stopped there, as the rest is trying to counter an implicit argument I did not make.

And regarding the Polgar experiment, he was trying to prove genius is created, not born (the nature versus nurture argument).  I was not claiming an adult beginner could become a chess genius, simply a sufficiently strong player if the moons and planets are aligned properly.

@71
I even think an adult beginner can progress faster than a child,
but the ceiling the adult can reach is lower than the ceiling of a child.

Yeah, I agree with this. Kids are dumb and don't know how to learn things, so they learn slowly.

But that's only for the basics. Adults struggle after that but a kid will keep learning for a long time.

"kids are dumb" interesting statement