Why do you have to be good at a young age?

It is entirely possible that this was a joke that went over my head, but Capablanca famously showed up his father and uncle at the age of 4, when they didn't even realize he knew how to play.

How about like old cheese?

 Link? I can't be aware of everything that is posted on chess.com, you know.

LOL! :D

Anand said if you are not grandmaster these days by 14 forget about chess, so i guess we should all go home :D

 I hate it when people say things like that, and have that mindset.

As it says on my profile:

"The person that says 'It can't be done' is liable to be interrupted by the person doing it."

I started playing chess about 2 years ago, im now 1300 i cant really answer that but starting at a young age makes it easier

That's a cute phrase, but it's also a platitude. It doesn't really mean anything without proof or examples. 

Lots of things can't be done. The person saying "living to 200 is impossible" probably isn't going to be interrupted by someone doing it. A person saying "Going faster than the speed of light" isn't likely to be interrupted by someone doing it. And I'm pretty confident anyone saying "it's virtually impossible to make grandmaster without starting chess at a very young age" is not going to be interrupted by someone doing it :)

 What did I just say?

Don't say things like that..

There are many things we do not know about yet, perhaps it is possible to go faster than the speed of light. Living to 200 is possible, with our technology these days.

And for your last point, read the posts above! You obviously seem to lazy to do that, so I will post it here for you:

Tchigorin took to chess at 24.

Blackburne learned aged 18.

There's no need to be personally rude and insulting because I disagree with you. I did, in fact, read the posts in question

Tchigorin was exposed to chess in his teen years.

Both Tchigorin and Blackburne played at a different time. If the question was "was it possible to reach grandmaster-like heights in chess starting in your late teen years in the 19th century," then my answer would probably be different. But none of us have the option of trying that now.

 Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude.

But I still think that anything is possible

 I agree. But wouldn't it be cool one day to see the chessboard in the same way that a master chess player does?  Think of the beauty in that. Right now, I only have a 25 watt bulb illuminating the chessboard, not the power of the sun.

 Haha, I think for me it is one of those fluroscent bulbs, so after playing for a while in a day, it gets brighter, but suddenly the bulb will blow and I'm left in darkness again :)

YES IT WOULD!  I would settle for just having a good dream of it.  My dreams are very realistic.  

There are a few reasons for this:

1. Kids learn faster than adults.

2. In childhood one has more free time and less distractions. Also, kids usually live on their parents' money, so they can play chess even if this activity isn't financially rewarding. Few adults have this luxury. 

3. Starting early (if it goes well) helps in terms of boosting one's self-esteem, enjoying the process, building a career and attracting sponsors.

Until envious people come along and constantly remind you that your being good at chess does not make you better or more intelligent than anyone. At that point you can either sink into a depression or put chess aside and live a "normal" life.

Actually, Capablanca not only began playing Chess as a child, he did it when he was no older than 4 - he was one of the earliest and youngest developing child prodigies of all time and the very opposite of the late bloomer you claim him to be. In fact, by the age of 13 Capablanca was the best player in all of Cuba. So I really don't see the basis for your ridiculous statement (I mean, at least choose someone who's not the greatest and youngest Chess prodigy of all-time as your example for a late bloomer, even if you have to choose someone who obviously didn't start at age 20) - could you state your source, by any chance?

The problem with starting at a later age is that it leaves you with less time to develop. Becoming an International Master is so extraordinarily difficult that if you don't start out by your teens it is extremely unlikely that you will manage it. Let me give you an example: you see those guys in the middle of the Under-12 section at the WYCC, who are 12-year-olds with ratings of 2000 and scores of 6/10, ranked 40th out of 150? About half of those people will become International Masters, and the other half won't. These are the guys who are each the best in their entire countries - probably for the age group above there's. And yet only the top EIGHTH of them will even become International Masters (this is according to my coach, who is quite amateur but still plays at around 2000). That is despite the fact that each of them is supremely talented (gifted enough to be the top of their countries including people a year older than them, a big feat for people of that age), extremely hard-working and has a great love for Chess. Why is this the case? Simply because titles are SO hard to get, which some people don't appreciate a lot on these forums. Look at it this way: only the Top 20 in the U12 Open of the WYCC - that is, people with around 2150 ELO at age 12 - are likely to become International Masters. The majority of the Top 100 will probably become FIDE Masters, but that's still only half of the total number of prodigies who are the best in the entire country for their age group and the one above it. After reading this, maybe you will understand what kind of ability is necessary to get a title.

However, I guess if you did have tremendous talent and somehow avoided Chess until a late age, I suppose there would be nothing stopping you from reaching the same heights as those who started early and used their talent (there maybe a scientific neurological reason, but I'll leave that to others to explain in detail). This ocassion is just rare because (I think) it's difficult not to notice the most popular board game in the world all throughout your youth.

staunton didnt start chess until he was in his 30s, i seem to recall.

he wasnt as good as capa or morphy, but still was a good master

 That was possible in Staunton's time but I dont believe its possible today. Too much has changed in the world of chess.

Actually, Staunton started when he was 26 years old, but this is a good enough example. Unfortunately, when Staunton began playing the levels of positional understanding and strategical play involved were totally absent (they were introduced to the game in Steinitz's era); Chess was based on tactical understanding and the like, which is fairly easy to pick up at a relatively old age as well as a young age (whereas the deep positional understanding that GMs today require can come only from considerable experience, and, usually long-time serious study and competition of Chess at the top level). Therefore, while Staunton found it possible to become a top player in his own time, in our time it would be impossible (as NM Reb said).

 What has changed? How is the game different from the past? Is it just that it is more competitive now, and there is a greater understanding?