Realistic Goal? Be brutally honest but actually back up what you are saying

So uhh I turned 14 2 weeks ago, have been playing chess for 2 years and want to get 2200 FIDE (CM) before I die. I do not know what my actual FIDE rating is now, as I am far better at classical than speedchess, but I would make a guess at 1600 (Im 1900 online but that doesnt matter here). I study chess a lot. I want to become a CM because I want to become a doctor so will not have enough time to get, say, FM. Also 1 year of my chess journey was spent nit improving and being around 1100. So can I get CM before I die?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

prob no tbh

but anything can happen

if you want it enough, it's possible

I specifically asked you to back up your statement

Honestly, it's unlikely this happens, as a majority of players peak at 2000. About a year of hard studying should get you to 2000(based on some forum posts about this very topic), but after this peak it gets much more difficult.

However, if you study for likely about 2-3(ballpark estimate), you should easily get to 2200.

Yes you should be able to

Peaks of others is completely irrelevant

Sigh IG nobody will back up there answer

Time Shall Tell the Tale.

1900 online would probably be like 1400 - 1500 fide but if you improve at the same rate then you could be a CM but it would take quite a lot of time and effort. 

Sigh read what I said Im far better at classical than online speed chess which is why I said 1600

I had a friend who was 2000 rated FIDE at some point when he was around the age of 12. He could have gone for CM but he stopped playing. I questioned him and he said that it is really hard to to get the title. Not only does it take time but it also the tournament games are a pain. However, I have no personal experience and this is his opinion.

probably. Statistically, 5% of OTB chess players reach expert (2000) and 1% reaches master (2200). you have reached 1900 elo in long time controls on chess.com in about two years, which shows that you have put in effort and know how to improve your skills. I also searched for players rated 2200-2299 in the FIDE database with b-years from 2001-2008, so similarly aged to you, most of their rating charts show that they started playing FIDE OTB standard with around 1400-1800 standard rating, and that they all reached 2200+ in 2-5 years. (the guy who was 1800 was the one who reached it in 2 years). so if you start at 1600 and have the same amount of dedication and talent as these people, I'd say you have a good chance

then again I am not a master (not even close)

Before you die, yes.

luck

Assuming you live at least another 60 years, and that your estimate of 1600 is correct, you only need to improve an average of 100 points every decade to reach this goal. The average adult improver in the sub-2000 levels will usually improve 50-200 points per year when they are diligently working on their Chess. So yes, CM (and even FM) is possible. The issue will become motivation once you get passed 2000 as it becomes exponentially more difficult to increase rating.

How far you can get depends almost exclusively on how much you're willing to work. SuperGM Sam Shankland is somewhat famous for claiming he has no talent, and that he got to where he is exclusively based on work, and I'd agree with that.

The more I study chess, the less I can identify as "Chess Talent" and the more I can identify as particular categories of chess study. Dynamics and Material Imbalance are the two big categories for "creative play," but I think that positional understanding makes up a far bigger chunk of what made the "creatives" truly amazing.

Karpov went from down a piece for just one passed pawn, to sacrificing an exchange (so he's down a full rook), threatening mate to force f6, so that he could force a trade of queens. But the madman's getting two connected passers and having queens off the board makes them stronger.

I'm no Karpov, but I saw the gist of the forcing variation I was headed towards when I played c5, I was saccing an exchange on a8 and my b7 pawn as well, AND offering a trade of queens, in order to get two connected passers. It's actually funny that people's brains short circuit on this one and they're like "Oh I'm winning material, I should trade queens!" but like Karpov-Huebner, that's not always the case. The more white traded, the better my pawns got, and in practical terms, it's black who is playing for the win, not white.

We can study. And learn. Plenty of room to get better, the question is just how much work you're willing to put in.

Vielen Dank .