There's approximately 605 million people playing Chess according to Google, and out of these 605 million there are a select few who are widely known in the Chess community (NOT anywhere else as in common knowledge), these people spend thousands of hours memorizing patterns, getting advice from their coach, playing games, et cetera, et cetera, and they become very strong players because of it, but these players start really, really young, around 6 years old, and dedicate stupid amounts of time into Chess, well into their adult life. These people can then in their adult life or later life live off of playing Chess by winning tournaments. But would you sacrifice thousands upon thousands of hours to play a board game if you knew you had 10 years to live? Hell no.
But we're ignoring millions of other people, what about these people? Some are young, some are old, some have played it for a few months, some have played it since they could read and write. And fact is, some people who have played it since they could read and write still haven't reached any sort of fame or huge status and therefore haven't earned much from Chess at all. A wasteful time-for-money tradeoff. The young people on the other hand usually say this is just a hobby, and it might be, but it's also a crazy stupid hobby if you think in terms of time.
If you like Chess, love it and obsess over it, you'll probably call me bad and then continue playing for a very long time. But Chess only gets worse and worse to play the higher level you play, needing more preparation, analysis and spot on moves to win, and if you find this fun, good! Just don't do it to the point where you're uncomfortable or feel you could be doing something better with your time. The sunk-cost fallacy also comes into play if you've played Chess for a long time, not wanting to have your time over such a long time wasted, and in return wasting more time. Notice this, be a little self-aware, and you'll see what I mean.
Cya.
Seems like a reasonable guess