Like Lenudan said, to be a GM, FM, or IM you have to be born with natural abilities. Magnus Carlsen, for example, naturally connected dots by the time he was four years old.
Unless you devote your entire being to chess, meaning quitting school, social life, etc (which I do not reccomend)
MinecraftProGamer-1 : I believe that it IS possible for your to become a GM in 5 years. You MUST have a good memory, must be quick at seeing tactics and other possibilities. I don't believe that it all that unlikely if you dedicate yourself to trying: A GM at age 19.
You cannot become a GM if you do not play in OTB tournaments, but by becoming a GM, I think it is possible for you to play at GM level in four years even if you are not officially a GM. I've only played chess for a couple years now and I've won city championships and most people think I play at about the rating of 2200 +.
I think it is FAR more likely for you to become a player of about 2200-2400 in the next 5 years, but I do think it is possible to become a GM.
Like Lenudan said, to be a GM, FM, or IM you have to be born with natural abilities. Magnus Carlsen, for example, naturally connected dots by the time he was four years old.
Unless you devote your entire being to chess, meaning quitting school, social life, etc (which I do not reccomend)
Nope... not even then will you become a GM. it's like saying I'm going to practice sprinting until I can 30 mph... it simply wont ever happen.
I disagree _ I think it is possible for me to become a GM in the next 5 years.
2000+ is doable with much work. GM an exponential leap above that. Watch Hikaru play.
I watch GM's play - I also play and beat GM's. Sure I'm below a GM because I make bad moves more often than they do, but the way to become a GM is to quit making bad moves. In four years, it is possible to work out a lot of the bad moves and see things a lot easier (especially when the mind matures more from 14-19). People get a lot better grasp of things which is why I think it is possible for him and for me.
95.2 accuracy against a 1500+, honestly, not bad 
95.2 accuracy against a 1500+, honestly, not bad
imho ur just weaker at tactics (eg missing the pawn was hanging and playing ..bg3?! instead, and misssing the m2 with ..rh8+), but that was a pretty solid game
95.2 accuracy against a 1500+, honestly, not bad
ya i am good!!
I would consider a person to be a "good" player when he is above 1800.
Most people would think it would take a lot of time to become a GM. I've coached a student who had brain surgery the year before for 1 year and just in 1 year, he went from a novice (knowing nothing about chess) to playing at 1950 level. It is not as hard as some people may think if the person has a natural ability.
I took a look at your games: NO - sorry I would not consider you a good player.
1. Stick to the same opening until you master it. You have NOT mastered an opening yet, so don't just play random opening moves.
2. You often miss lots of tactics and ideas and I would consider obvious.
3. You often blunder pieces for no reason and you often lose really quickly.
4. From your games, you don't seem to really have any type of plan - Your pieces don't move with any objective it seems.
IF YOU WANT TO GET BETTER--
-- You should try to play longer games and take more time to calculate. Pay more attention to what your opponent is doing since you are often not doing so. Make sure you aren't hanging any pieces.
-- It may help if you played on another site (not chess.com) with an engine. - A site that allows it (like sparkchess.com) to help you see what engines recommend and how to attack and use your pieces in the best way.
Like Lenudan said, to be a GM, FM, or IM you have to be born with natural abilities. Magnus Carlsen, for example, naturally connected dots by the time he was four years old.