Chess "Prodigy's"

The case and fuss made about chess "Prodigy's" has confused me since I started. In my honest opinion, I wouldn't take age into account at ALL. I'm not impressed by a 14 year old IM,when I hear they have been playing since the age of 3. I would only value how LONG THAT U HAVE BEEN PLAYING. Can some one pls tell me why people take into account the age of a chess player, not how long they have been playing

Lol

But they have been playing a long time. So......... It doesn't matter how old U r

after the teenage years the brain stops moulding in the same way. also if you look at a chart of players strenght it oftent starts to drop a bit after when the player is 30-50 years old. a lot of people in their mid to late twenties dont progress much at all.

    There are some people who can absorb and understand certain types of knowledge in an amazingly short time and to an astonishingly high level when exposed to that field in early childhood. No one knows just how this happens. This happens almost exclusively in mathematics, music and chess. The majority of such cases are males.

     Someone who took eleven years (age 3-14) of work to become an IM wouldn't truly be a prodigy. Someone like Morphy (strongest player in New Orleans by age 9), Capablanca (learned to play just by watching his father's games and beating good players almost immediately), or Reshevsky (playing simuls and winning all the games vs good players before he was 12) are examples of actual prodigies. The term is often applied to any kid who is proficient beyond their years at something, but it really only truly applies to those rare case of almost-instant mastery.

9th