Fischer was poor, lived in a zone with the highest murder rate in Brooklyn and did it all by himself...
Late-bloomers
OK, fine, Fischer is a bad example here. I take that back.
Let's compare Shaw to Carlsen. Carlsen was born to engineers, and he did not grow up in a poor area. I think Shaw's accomplishment is still more impressive.
Agree, especially because it hardly ever happens.
There's a few examples but not many, whereas young kids achieving Master norms, whilst impressive, is relatively commonplace.
Jonathan Hawkins is another late bloomer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Hawkins
Yes, for example, I would respect Shaw more than Xiong.
For once Xiong looks like a sissy, and in second place he is a kid, life hasnt hit him hard.
Why does the chess world not acknowledge people who become grandmasters despite starting the game at a relatively old age (like 20, for instance)?
I think the chess world does acknowledge and respect people like John Shaw and Jonathan Hawkins. For much older people (such as me) they are inspirational role models giving me hope that I might eventually regain and surpass the peak rating that I reached half a lifetime ago, and perhaps even make it beyond 2200.
Trouble is that there are very few of them. However they do disprove (by counter example) the common belief that if you aren't very strong by the time you are in your mid-teens then you have no chance of ever becoming an IM or GM.
That in turn raises many questions. Are the few adults that achieve IM and GM status despite a late start some kind of biological freaks? Did they always have exceptional talent for chess, but never showed it until they started to work at the game? Or are the reasons that few adults become strong that they do not make the big sustained effort it would take because they have too many other responsibilities, other interests, or cannot see the point and are happy to play for enjoyment at a moderate level.
Or perhaps most adults limit themselves by believing what most others believe: That only young brains are sharp enough to master this difficult game?
If we took the attitude that because it has never been done before it is impossible (which is the core of the argument that you have to master chess while you are young) then the Manhattan project would not have happened, Roger Bannister would never have attempted the 4 minute mile, Hilary and Tensing would not have climbed Everest. In fact we'd still be living in the stone age.
Truth is we do not know the limits of what the human mind is capable of at any age.
But whatever the truth is I am not expecting a sudden flood of 40-plus year old club players improving massively and gaining IM and GM titles!
I think you're confusing respect with attention. Children GMs get more attention because they have the most promise at becoming world champs. It's not about how easy or hard it was. You just get more attention the sooner you get it done in life because that leaves so many years of childhood left to advance beyond that point. And when you see a 10-year-old beat a 30-year-old it's only natural to be more impressed with the 10-year-old because they've had far less time to get to that point than the 30-year-old. In general I think most people are impressed by all GMs. Being a master at something is always impressive to me, at any age.
Why does the chess world not acknowledge people who become grandmasters despite starting the game at a relatively old age (like 20, for instance)? We're all quick to praise kids when they become GMs before turning 15.
Although becoming a titled player at a young age is impressive, what is even MORE impressive is the fact that some people do that despite being fully-grown adults. If you begin playing chess as a little child, then you are most likely going to be a strong player since you have a good head-start. Unlike adults, children do not have to worry about the problems of life, such as paying their bills, taxes, going to work, etc. Because of this, they can fully concentrate on chess (whereas adults are preoccupied with millions of other things).
Let's take a look at John K. Shaw, for example. When he was 17, his rating was 1700. In 2006, he became a GM at 38. I think this is a lot more impressive than Bobby Fischer becoming a GM at 15. Why? Shaw got the title despite being a MIDDLE-AGED man! As for Fischer, his brain was a lot fresher due to his youthfulness (science says that our brains begin to deteriorate after we turn 25-28~), and his mind did not have to preoccupy itself with responsibilities such as going to work and paying his bills. I'd also like to note that all Fischer had to do was worry about chess. On the other hand, Shaw has to worry about doing work besides playing competitive chess. In all seriousness, I am not trying to minimize the awesomeness of RJF, but I think Shaw's accomplishment should be acknowledged more.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Shaw
Tl;dr version: Becoming a GM as a child is impressive, but getting that title as a late-bloomer is more awe-inspiring because it is much more difficult to show great progress as an adult chess player.