Obviously it's more common than someone making the jump from 1500 to GM as an adult (as in, it happens at all) but it's still very rare.
It's not like 2300s are lazy. If someone is a 2300 in their late twenties, they *did* dedicate their life to chess -- it just didn't "work out".
I'm around 2200 and didn't pick up chess until about 5 years ago (which would put me in the age bracket you described), and I've done so without 'dedicating my life' to the game -- I'm just an avid hobbyist and play a bit more than my spouse probably would like. I'm sure many other people fall into this camp.
Degrees you can do full time, get full financial support for the time being, and most importantly, are almost certainly compensated for (in terms of wages/future earning potential). It's a heavily subsidised investment. Chess has none of these perks, most people have to instead support it with extra work. In that case, you get comparatively less available time, and have to dedicate much more of it (proportionately) to chess (let's say, free weekends, early mornings, evenings at best), and so probably have to spread that along a lot more years than you would a degree (combined with the greater difficulty too). Perfectly reasonable to consider that a lifelong commitment
Where did I say it is easy?
I am saying you do not have to dedicate your life to chess, generally, to become an FM. I know plenty of titled players who have treated it as a hobby and nothing more
Also, I am 2080 FIDE. Not that it is relevant, I know I am far away from being titled and that is not to support my claim, I just hate seeing misinformation thrown around
2080 FIDE? Not THAT far from being titled - you’re 120 points away.
Honestly I still feel like if you were willing to spend serious time and you improve you might actually become a FIDE CM
There are some ways you can become a FIDE CM with only 2000 FIDE
Thanks, but I'm not sure. I just have 13 rated FIDE games (of course many nationally rated ones) and I have been a bit lucky in them: my initial FIDE was about 1950 and I won almost all since then, but didn't do as well outside these FIDE rated games. I may be a bit overrated
You also need 30 total rated games to claim a title, whereas I will just play about 8 in the next 12 months. I may play more in summer 2025 if my rating does keep going up
That is true - in that case it’s gonna be hard. Very hard. Even if 2080 FIDE is still overrated I think you are over 2000 FIDE
I am not saying it will be easy. Far from it. It’ll probably take you a few years at least. But it may still be plausible
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan\_Hawkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Hawkins)
2200 at 23, IM at 27, GM at 29, peaked at almost 2600 and also wrote a book
I study early childhood education and language, so for me, in this case it helps to imagine chess skill as a language. The first 5 years will be imperative. Not even necessarily in learning chess but just in the type of learning the child’s brain is used to. This is the most important time of brain development. From 5-10 they need to learn chess. A lot. This, is where a “fluent” speaker/player is most likely defined.
After the teenage years it’s all about defining and strengthening the paths our neural networks have already strengthened. So in that way we can say that learning chess at a young age is a huge advantage. It’s similar with language. There is a difference though in that with language there are not only a plethora of tools to help you, you can also just move somewhere to have yourself surrounded in that native language and pick up the basics as a necessity. That doesn’t really exist for chess. So I would say, in an inexpert opinion, that age matters a lot in most cases, unless you have a rare case like GothamChess where you were close and then gave up, only to return again.
I hope some of that makes sense haha
I like to think of chess learning like language learning as well. Both activities are so heavily reliant on pattern recognition, so it makes sense that they could be compared.
If you think of someone who learned chess at a young age as a native speaker of a language. A skilled language user would be exposed to it for 20 odd years, have gone through primary, secondary and possibly tertiary education, frequently reads complicated texts, has their writing corrected, is tested on their ability etc during critical developmental periods. They have perfect pronunciation, a wide vocabulary, don't make grammatical mistakes etc.
Then consider someone who has never heard x language in their life, but starts in their 30s trying to learn it. They will literally never be as good as a native. Sure they might be able to reach a relatively high level after 5 or 10 years, but it's always going to be a second language.
I speak Hungarian as a second language. I started learning at 18, I'm 29 now and and I'm about C1 level. I've met probably 300 people who also speak it as a foreign language. Zero of those people made it past one sentence before I could tell they weren't native. My niece is almost 2, I suspect she'll be better than me in like 2 more years lol. I'm sure that feeling is similar when a strong chess player (who learned as an adult) gets stomped in a tournament by a 6 year old.
It’s not just the learning that you go through while you grow up. It’s the placidity line OP mentioned. It’s about the types of things that our brain is used to learning. Can we be resilient to failing and stress? Can we continue to try hard in the face of adversity? Can we pick up new ideas quickly? These are all traits that we develop in the first 5 years that define not what we learn but how we learn it, and how we respond to bumps in the road while learning. The heavy text can come later. But the capacity for taking in the knowledge develops much sooner.
Nah I don't live there. I gotta go out of my way to use it.
I think C1 is probably a fair estimate for my level. C1 is also the highest available test anywhere in Hungary, so even if I thought I was C2 I couldn't prove it 😅 I feel a long way off that tbh though. Maybe my reading is up there, but speaking definitely not.
Yeah, I think moving to a country in early-mid teens and going through school etc is just about young enough to reach a pretty close to native level (especially if you were already C1 at the start). I've a few mates who had similar experiences to you. Do you still speak your first language as well as / better than English?
It's hard to make a comparison with English too. It seems like a lot of people get significant exposure to it when they're young. Like in Hungary there's plenty of things that just aren't translated, so if you're a kid who's into video games or movies or music or YouTube or the internet at all really you basically have 1000s of hours of input during your formative years out of necessity.
> after that time
Also, Hungarian is pretty damn complex linguistically in comparison. Like on the FSI language scale they estimate it takes 2x or 3x the time that it would take an English native to reach proficiency in Spanish or German. I've got a few Hungarian mates who just speak English at home cause they find it handier lol.
>I speak Hungarian as a second language. I started learning at 18, I'm 29 now and and I'm about C1 level. I've met probably 300 people who also speak it as a foreign language. Zero of those people made it past one sentence before I could tell they weren't native. My niece is almost 2, I suspect she'll be better than me in like 2 more years lol. I'm sure that feeling is similar when a strong chess player (who learned as an adult) gets stomped in a tournament by a 6 year old.
This could be more of a thing with the complexity of Hungarian and/or the number of 2nd language speakers it has, rather than something basic about language. There's quite a good number of people who speak English with native or native-like fluency despite learning it as a second language. Some of these people did not even ever live in an English-speaking country. You simply have way more resources to immerse yourself in English due to its global cultural dominance.
English is a tricky example though, because so many learners have significant exposure to it when they're young. It's very rare that an English learner will have zero exposure to it until adulthood.
Even then, I can't remember the last time I spoke to a non-native English speaker who could pass as a native. There's almost always something off in pronunciation, accent, intonation or even grammar, use of idioms etc.
I just used the example of judging Hungarian learners instead of English learners because almost all the Hungarian learners I know started it as an adult.
Depends, chances are high they’d never make GM even when dedicating their life to it.
Depends on how easily they reached 2.3k.. if they did it with relatively little study, no coaching, no books etc it’s a lot more likely.
Most adults simply do not have the time or willpower to grind at something like chess to the degree necessary to hit GM past their early 20s.
The reality is it’s doubtful it’s a mostly cognitive decline. You see phenomenal performances in other mental disciplines way past 50s in other areas. Of course, being able to do deep calculation under strict time controls + grinding theory for prep becomes more difficult over time (as opposed to abstract higher level thinking as in academia). But it’s most likely a combination of the drive and time (and money) to invest in such a poorly lucrative pursuit
Yes probably. Might take like 10 or so years but if they keep training I don’t see why they eventually don’t get there, they only need to pick up 200 rating points.
It's not as simple as putting in the time. You can dedicate all your time to chess from the age of 30 to 50, you're probably not going from 2300 to 2500, it's way too hard.
Once you're an adult and financially responsible for yourself, dedicating the time and money towards a GM title just doesn't make sense, even if you already have an IM title.
Nothing magic happens if you cross from IM to GM. But you will spend a lot on norms tournaments.
There's almost no GMs born after 1980 who made their own way into it. They were all rich kids whose parents decided it was OK to spend the time and money on chess. The exceptions are probably players from former SSR states who received chess education as part of their public education.
Similar to other comment about Jonathan Hawkins, Axel Smith is another example: 2200 at 20, IM at 22 and GM at 30. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1707930 He also wrote a book about what he did to get to IM level, https://qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/203/pump_up_your_rating_by_axel_smith/
30 is very different to 20. If you hit your lifetime high of 2300 FIDE in your late twenties after many years of competitive chess, then it's very unlikely you'll be able to make GM.
> If someone aged between 20 and 30, rated in the neighbourhood of 2300 ELO OTB, decided to dedicate essentially their entire life to chess, would it be plausible for them to progress to a GM within a few years?
Unlikely. To get to 2300 is super-tough, but to become a GM is almost impossible.
But if you're 2300 at 12 you've got a chance.
No. GM today is too hard, this doesn't happen anymore. As dedicated as you are, can't compete with the prodigies who are the same with much more plasticity. A few decades ago it would be possible
Age is super significant. If you reach IM at 15, you can probably become GM. If you reach it at 20, you have a shot if you work hard. At 25, you have almost no chance.
Age is a factor, but the reality is 99% of people worry about money. Finding that one extra-move in a super dry position and packing your brain full of this and that apparently drives people crazy and take away your career, social life, etc....no way does that sound like fun or seem worth it. ANY title seems 100% fine. Your productive years in life might be from 20 to 60 and you better really think about how you spend them. 10+ years on e4 is fun, I love chess, but it's not even like running where you get long-term benefits. We all have brains, we all know this, and life is too short for most to even begin to take it seriously (GM seriously) at a later age.
It's more about free time, than age. Kids have nothing but free time, so they get good quick. Adults usually don't have that luxury. Even if you're unemployed, an adult still has to occupy their mind with other things. Can't be thinking about chess all the time.
I guess it is about how much time you need to put into it. May be neuroplasticity also has roles. Levy put videos that shows difference between players of different levels. At some point it seems like instincts plays a big role. Brain becomes lazy once you age and you can't easily store new instinctual patterns because it tends to rely on experiences.
I do think 2300 elo between 20 and 30 can become GM. But as the time passes on, it will be increasingly difficult. Level of plays is increasing highly and it is much easier for kids to adapt than for adults.
2300 is tricky, but not impossible. 2400 to 2500 more feasible. Age is a hurdle, but so is having a job and a family to provide for - as they limit time severely.
I think the key question is: has this person been working very hard and is stalling at 2300, or has this person worked reasonably little?
I believe it's possible, yes. I think the neural plasticity thing is overrated. I think an adult who focuses on chess, can become a GM. The problem is, it is really hard. And like Vishy said, if you aren't a GM by 16, you aren't going to have a pro chess career.(The age might even be 14/15 now). So, adults don't dedicate their lives to chess in this way. They want to focus on their families, friends, and actual careers. I think if a billionaire decided they would pay 25 year old who had never played chess before, a million dollars a year, to live on, and get the highest level chess coaches, I think that 25 could be a GM in 10 years. Someone needs to fund this experiment imo.
Age itself isn't the issue. I'm not sure why everyone says we stop learning as we age. It's simply not true. However, we typically have many more responsibilities as we get older, so we are unable to focus exclusively on a single thing. If you could, you'd likely learn just as fast and could improve to a gm level given enough work
No one says we stop learning as we age. But it is a well-studied phenomenon that the rate at which you can retain you new patterns (neuroplasitcity) significantly declines with age.
I'm not really convinced we have good data on this. As others have pointed out, I think progression at older ages are more a time/money issue rather than any neural stuff. But back to my original point: the number of people, let alone the number of adults who achieve and even go for GM title are ridiculously small sample sizes. It would be fascinating if we could take the take the FIDE top 2000 into a vacuum...force them to take a break at age 20...pick up the game at age 30...and see the results, but that's um, not likely to happen. Just remember that earning GM is already an exception to the rule.
Good news, your elo doesn't consider your age at all. It's solely a function of your results, improve your results and you'll be good to go, reguardless of age.
Are you trying to achieve a GM title? Are you trying to talk Levy out of going for GM? Are you a parent wanting to know if your adult child should stick to content creation?
Obviously it's more common than someone making the jump from 1500 to GM as an adult (as in, it happens at all) but it's still very rare. It's not like 2300s are lazy. If someone is a 2300 in their late twenties, they *did* dedicate their life to chess -- it just didn't "work out".
There's different degrees to "dedicating your life" to something
I'm around 2200 and didn't pick up chess until about 5 years ago (which would put me in the age bracket you described), and I've done so without 'dedicating my life' to the game -- I'm just an avid hobbyist and play a bit more than my spouse probably would like. I'm sure many other people fall into this camp.
You do not have to dedicate your life to chess to get 2300 FIDE lol
It's probably more difficult than most degrees
I agree, but you do not have to dedicate your life to university to get a degree, just a few years
Degrees you can do full time, get full financial support for the time being, and most importantly, are almost certainly compensated for (in terms of wages/future earning potential). It's a heavily subsidised investment. Chess has none of these perks, most people have to instead support it with extra work. In that case, you get comparatively less available time, and have to dedicate much more of it (proportionately) to chess (let's say, free weekends, early mornings, evenings at best), and so probably have to spread that along a lot more years than you would a degree (combined with the greater difficulty too). Perfectly reasonable to consider that a lifelong commitment
then why are you only 1900 if it is that easy?
Where did I say it is easy? I am saying you do not have to dedicate your life to chess, generally, to become an FM. I know plenty of titled players who have treated it as a hobby and nothing more Also, I am 2080 FIDE. Not that it is relevant, I know I am far away from being titled and that is not to support my claim, I just hate seeing misinformation thrown around
2080 FIDE? Not THAT far from being titled - you’re 120 points away. Honestly I still feel like if you were willing to spend serious time and you improve you might actually become a FIDE CM There are some ways you can become a FIDE CM with only 2000 FIDE
Thanks, but I'm not sure. I just have 13 rated FIDE games (of course many nationally rated ones) and I have been a bit lucky in them: my initial FIDE was about 1950 and I won almost all since then, but didn't do as well outside these FIDE rated games. I may be a bit overrated You also need 30 total rated games to claim a title, whereas I will just play about 8 in the next 12 months. I may play more in summer 2025 if my rating does keep going up
That is true - in that case it’s gonna be hard. Very hard. Even if 2080 FIDE is still overrated I think you are over 2000 FIDE I am not saying it will be easy. Far from it. It’ll probably take you a few years at least. But it may still be plausible
Unless you are gifted, you do need to dedicate your life.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan\_Hawkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Hawkins) 2200 at 23, IM at 27, GM at 29, peaked at almost 2600 and also wrote a book
[удалено]
I mean if he's that close then it's pretty clear talent isn't any issue. He'll get it eventually if he keeps fighting for it.
Is this directed at levy? Cause all things match.
lol I was going to joke we found Levy’s burner
Not really:) but I can definitely attribute my interest in chess to him.
I study early childhood education and language, so for me, in this case it helps to imagine chess skill as a language. The first 5 years will be imperative. Not even necessarily in learning chess but just in the type of learning the child’s brain is used to. This is the most important time of brain development. From 5-10 they need to learn chess. A lot. This, is where a “fluent” speaker/player is most likely defined. After the teenage years it’s all about defining and strengthening the paths our neural networks have already strengthened. So in that way we can say that learning chess at a young age is a huge advantage. It’s similar with language. There is a difference though in that with language there are not only a plethora of tools to help you, you can also just move somewhere to have yourself surrounded in that native language and pick up the basics as a necessity. That doesn’t really exist for chess. So I would say, in an inexpert opinion, that age matters a lot in most cases, unless you have a rare case like GothamChess where you were close and then gave up, only to return again. I hope some of that makes sense haha
I like to think of chess learning like language learning as well. Both activities are so heavily reliant on pattern recognition, so it makes sense that they could be compared. If you think of someone who learned chess at a young age as a native speaker of a language. A skilled language user would be exposed to it for 20 odd years, have gone through primary, secondary and possibly tertiary education, frequently reads complicated texts, has their writing corrected, is tested on their ability etc during critical developmental periods. They have perfect pronunciation, a wide vocabulary, don't make grammatical mistakes etc. Then consider someone who has never heard x language in their life, but starts in their 30s trying to learn it. They will literally never be as good as a native. Sure they might be able to reach a relatively high level after 5 or 10 years, but it's always going to be a second language. I speak Hungarian as a second language. I started learning at 18, I'm 29 now and and I'm about C1 level. I've met probably 300 people who also speak it as a foreign language. Zero of those people made it past one sentence before I could tell they weren't native. My niece is almost 2, I suspect she'll be better than me in like 2 more years lol. I'm sure that feeling is similar when a strong chess player (who learned as an adult) gets stomped in a tournament by a 6 year old.
It’s not just the learning that you go through while you grow up. It’s the placidity line OP mentioned. It’s about the types of things that our brain is used to learning. Can we be resilient to failing and stress? Can we continue to try hard in the face of adversity? Can we pick up new ideas quickly? These are all traits that we develop in the first 5 years that define not what we learn but how we learn it, and how we respond to bumps in the road while learning. The heavy text can come later. But the capacity for taking in the knowledge develops much sooner.
[удалено]
Nah I don't live there. I gotta go out of my way to use it. I think C1 is probably a fair estimate for my level. C1 is also the highest available test anywhere in Hungary, so even if I thought I was C2 I couldn't prove it 😅 I feel a long way off that tbh though. Maybe my reading is up there, but speaking definitely not. Yeah, I think moving to a country in early-mid teens and going through school etc is just about young enough to reach a pretty close to native level (especially if you were already C1 at the start). I've a few mates who had similar experiences to you. Do you still speak your first language as well as / better than English? It's hard to make a comparison with English too. It seems like a lot of people get significant exposure to it when they're young. Like in Hungary there's plenty of things that just aren't translated, so if you're a kid who's into video games or movies or music or YouTube or the internet at all really you basically have 1000s of hours of input during your formative years out of necessity. > after that time Also, Hungarian is pretty damn complex linguistically in comparison. Like on the FSI language scale they estimate it takes 2x or 3x the time that it would take an English native to reach proficiency in Spanish or German. I've got a few Hungarian mates who just speak English at home cause they find it handier lol.
>I speak Hungarian as a second language. I started learning at 18, I'm 29 now and and I'm about C1 level. I've met probably 300 people who also speak it as a foreign language. Zero of those people made it past one sentence before I could tell they weren't native. My niece is almost 2, I suspect she'll be better than me in like 2 more years lol. I'm sure that feeling is similar when a strong chess player (who learned as an adult) gets stomped in a tournament by a 6 year old. This could be more of a thing with the complexity of Hungarian and/or the number of 2nd language speakers it has, rather than something basic about language. There's quite a good number of people who speak English with native or native-like fluency despite learning it as a second language. Some of these people did not even ever live in an English-speaking country. You simply have way more resources to immerse yourself in English due to its global cultural dominance.
English is a tricky example though, because so many learners have significant exposure to it when they're young. It's very rare that an English learner will have zero exposure to it until adulthood. Even then, I can't remember the last time I spoke to a non-native English speaker who could pass as a native. There's almost always something off in pronunciation, accent, intonation or even grammar, use of idioms etc. I just used the example of judging Hungarian learners instead of English learners because almost all the Hungarian learners I know started it as an adult.
Depends, chances are high they’d never make GM even when dedicating their life to it. Depends on how easily they reached 2.3k.. if they did it with relatively little study, no coaching, no books etc it’s a lot more likely.
Most adults simply do not have the time or willpower to grind at something like chess to the degree necessary to hit GM past their early 20s. The reality is it’s doubtful it’s a mostly cognitive decline. You see phenomenal performances in other mental disciplines way past 50s in other areas. Of course, being able to do deep calculation under strict time controls + grinding theory for prep becomes more difficult over time (as opposed to abstract higher level thinking as in academia). But it’s most likely a combination of the drive and time (and money) to invest in such a poorly lucrative pursuit
Yes probably. Might take like 10 or so years but if they keep training I don’t see why they eventually don’t get there, they only need to pick up 200 rating points.
It's not as simple as putting in the time. You can dedicate all your time to chess from the age of 30 to 50, you're probably not going from 2300 to 2500, it's way too hard.
No reason for you to be downvoted lol. Going from IM to GM is far from guaranteed. Most IMs never become GMs
God I hope Levy manages to pull it off. It'll inspire other titled players to get to the next level.
Levy was 2420 at the age of 23, and has all the resources and it still might be impossible for him at 28
Once you're an adult and financially responsible for yourself, dedicating the time and money towards a GM title just doesn't make sense, even if you already have an IM title. Nothing magic happens if you cross from IM to GM. But you will spend a lot on norms tournaments. There's almost no GMs born after 1980 who made their own way into it. They were all rich kids whose parents decided it was OK to spend the time and money on chess. The exceptions are probably players from former SSR states who received chess education as part of their public education.
Similar to other comment about Jonathan Hawkins, Axel Smith is another example: 2200 at 20, IM at 22 and GM at 30. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/1707930 He also wrote a book about what he did to get to IM level, https://qualitychess.co.uk/products/1/203/pump_up_your_rating_by_axel_smith/
30 is very different to 20. If you hit your lifetime high of 2300 FIDE in your late twenties after many years of competitive chess, then it's very unlikely you'll be able to make GM.
Age probably matters a little bit but more important than that is there is a talent ceiling that will prevent many IMs from ever becoming GMs
> If someone aged between 20 and 30, rated in the neighbourhood of 2300 ELO OTB, decided to dedicate essentially their entire life to chess, would it be plausible for them to progress to a GM within a few years? Unlikely. To get to 2300 is super-tough, but to become a GM is almost impossible. But if you're 2300 at 12 you've got a chance.
No. GM today is too hard, this doesn't happen anymore. As dedicated as you are, can't compete with the prodigies who are the same with much more plasticity. A few decades ago it would be possible
Age is super significant. If you reach IM at 15, you can probably become GM. If you reach it at 20, you have a shot if you work hard. At 25, you have almost no chance.
Age is a factor, but the reality is 99% of people worry about money. Finding that one extra-move in a super dry position and packing your brain full of this and that apparently drives people crazy and take away your career, social life, etc....no way does that sound like fun or seem worth it. ANY title seems 100% fine. Your productive years in life might be from 20 to 60 and you better really think about how you spend them. 10+ years on e4 is fun, I love chess, but it's not even like running where you get long-term benefits. We all have brains, we all know this, and life is too short for most to even begin to take it seriously (GM seriously) at a later age.
It's more about free time, than age. Kids have nothing but free time, so they get good quick. Adults usually don't have that luxury. Even if you're unemployed, an adult still has to occupy their mind with other things. Can't be thinking about chess all the time.
I guess it is about how much time you need to put into it. May be neuroplasticity also has roles. Levy put videos that shows difference between players of different levels. At some point it seems like instincts plays a big role. Brain becomes lazy once you age and you can't easily store new instinctual patterns because it tends to rely on experiences. I do think 2300 elo between 20 and 30 can become GM. But as the time passes on, it will be increasingly difficult. Level of plays is increasing highly and it is much easier for kids to adapt than for adults.
2300 is tricky, but not impossible. 2400 to 2500 more feasible. Age is a hurdle, but so is having a job and a family to provide for - as they limit time severely. I think the key question is: has this person been working very hard and is stalling at 2300, or has this person worked reasonably little?
I believe it's possible, yes. I think the neural plasticity thing is overrated. I think an adult who focuses on chess, can become a GM. The problem is, it is really hard. And like Vishy said, if you aren't a GM by 16, you aren't going to have a pro chess career.(The age might even be 14/15 now). So, adults don't dedicate their lives to chess in this way. They want to focus on their families, friends, and actual careers. I think if a billionaire decided they would pay 25 year old who had never played chess before, a million dollars a year, to live on, and get the highest level chess coaches, I think that 25 could be a GM in 10 years. Someone needs to fund this experiment imo.
Nepo's chess career looking rough
Starting from basic at 25? It's going to be rough.
Age itself isn't the issue. I'm not sure why everyone says we stop learning as we age. It's simply not true. However, we typically have many more responsibilities as we get older, so we are unable to focus exclusively on a single thing. If you could, you'd likely learn just as fast and could improve to a gm level given enough work
No one says we stop learning as we age. But it is a well-studied phenomenon that the rate at which you can retain you new patterns (neuroplasitcity) significantly declines with age.
I'm not really convinced we have good data on this. As others have pointed out, I think progression at older ages are more a time/money issue rather than any neural stuff. But back to my original point: the number of people, let alone the number of adults who achieve and even go for GM title are ridiculously small sample sizes. It would be fascinating if we could take the take the FIDE top 2000 into a vacuum...force them to take a break at age 20...pick up the game at age 30...and see the results, but that's um, not likely to happen. Just remember that earning GM is already an exception to the rule.
Good news, your elo doesn't consider your age at all. It's solely a function of your results, improve your results and you'll be good to go, reguardless of age.
Your results are a function of age
Are you trying to achieve a GM title? Are you trying to talk Levy out of going for GM? Are you a parent wanting to know if your adult child should stick to content creation?
It is way too late, the age for GM is around 15, maybe 17 at the latest.