why does everyone want to compare being fluent with being a gm?
look at it THIS way. many millions of people will be fluent in English, Russian or French. but despite intense efforts Almost Nobody becomes a gm. its just the tiniest percentage of chess players-- even as a percentage of those that try as a kid.
🤔
Old school no cheating.
An IM told me once his title could be achieved for virtually anyone in his opinion (of course not all IM are the same, but he was meaning basically the title), it was like a degree. But you really don't start studying a degree in the faculty, but at the kindergarten when you are a child. Imagine a 40 years-old who doesn't know how to read or count trying to get a college degree.
Possibly of interest:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm
What It Takes to Become a Grandmaster by GM Andrew Soltis
https://www.chess.com/article/view/am-i-too-old-for-chess
In Soviet Russia, GM becomes YOU!
I think your analogy is both good and flawed. We all know people, who, even after years of study still cannot speak fluently in a foreign language, and we all know people who can read even classics in them. Bottom line, it's different for everyone. I have a talent for picking up languages easily (English being my third despite never spending any time in any English speaking country), while I will never understand higher level chess even if I tried to. Some people play multiple instruments, some speak multiple languages, some are chessmasters. We're all different.
The analogy is flawed in a different way, GnrfFrtzl. There's a world of difference between speaking a language and speaking it well. If you listen to any random conversation, you will hear many pauses, many 'umms' and 'ahhs' and clear as day grammatical errors. Most people can speak well enough to get by, but if you asked the average person to give a speech or write an essay, he or she would do a poor job.
Do not mistake fluency for mastery. Good chess players are like good speakers and good writers: few and far between.
That said, I'm convinced that 8-year-old me is no better at learning chess than 30-year-old me. If I had the same situation as when I was 8, so only six-hour school day and no other obligations or expenses, I would learn chess (or anything) just as fast if not faster.
Maybe if I were a more skilled chess player, I would feel differently. I like to play chess, but I quit playing in OTB tournaments because I became tired of the travel and overnight stays required. Becoming an IM or GM requires a lot of study, travel, and money. Even if I had the skill, I don't think that I would consider the title worth the effort. At my age, titles don't mean a lot.
I'm 75. I think I qualify as elder.
Old people have many responsibilties and distractions unlike teenagers and early 20s. Jobs, business, wife, kids, and even grandchildren if that old. An old bachelor could try to be GM and that is still very difficult. At mid 30s, memory, concentration and even motivation starts to diminish. At 52, Im happy to be destroying patzers and intermediate players 😎
"... as you become older, with other demands on your time (family, job, etc.) then it becomes more and more difficult to keep up with everything. ..." - GM John Nunn (2005)
Old people should not be allowed to play Chess.
I mean obviously age plays a roll, brain works slow I know that , but..
I can compare chess and a new language.
Imagine you want a child to learn a brand new language, send him abroad and he will speak fluently in couple of month.
Send an adult to lean new language he will speak fluently after years.
So my point is in both cases people will speak fluently , but it's just matter of time. So why chess can't be the same I belive anything is possible.
Of course their is some age limitations, 50 + probably stands very slim chance to speak fluently or be a GM but still not impossible, almost impossible to be correct.