Learn English – years (of) experience

Here are some facts would make it more clearer:

Years are countable so using 5 years would be correct.

Oxford dictionary says:

[countable, usually plural] age; time of life

-He was 14 years old when it happened.

-She looks young for her years.

-They were both only 20 years of age.

-A twenty-year-old manHe died in his sixtieth year.

-She's getting on in years (= is no longer young).

Experience can be used as both countable and uncountable

Countable forms:

[countable] an event or activity that affects you in some way

-an enjoyable/exciting/unusual/unforgettable, etc. experience

experience (of something):

-It was her first experience of living alone.

Uncountable forms:

[uncountable] the knowledge and skill that you have gained through doing something for a period of time; the process of gaining this

-to have more than ten years of teaching experience

-Do you have any previous experience with this type of work?

also

[uncountable] the things that have happened to you that influence the way you think and behave

-Experience has taught me that life can be very unfair.

-It is important to try and learn from experience.

So here we are looking for the first uncountable form which fits exactly what we are looking for.

Which gives us the result:

-I have 5 years of experience in playing chess.

The 'standard' order of adjectives is the Royal order of adjectives, memorised as DOSSACOM Q. This is standard across all varieties of English, and even non-English languages that allow prenominal adjectives.

Whether English users get it wrong is more difficult to answer. Underlying the royal order of adjectives is another ordering of determiner > specification > description > categorisation > noun. This is fairly solid, but within the three zones of specification, description, and categorisation the order is more of a tendency or preference than a rule.

This is because underlying that is the principle that the more concrete, intrinsic, or "nouny" an adjective is, the closer to the noun it goes. For example, if we compare the large round coin with the large round table, 'round' is very concrete. They are either round or they are not - there is not much to argue about and 'round' has the same meaning for both, so it is placed close to the noun. 'Large', however, is relative. A large coin is much smaller than a large table, and a table the size of a large coin would be considered tiny, so 'large' is placed far to the left of the noun.

There are limits to this. Size, length, and height are equally "nouny", concrete, and intrinsic, yet they appear in precisely that order, suggesting that it is mere convention. On top of this, deciding how "nouny", concrete, or intrinsic an adjective is, is quite subjective. This makes the whole notion of 'wrong' a bit cloudy, at least within the previously mentioned zones.