You can read books until you're a hundred years old and not become a master, you either have it or you don't.
It's like going to college, no matter how many years you study, you can't fix stupid.
Luckily (for chess and college) not many people are afflicted with "stupid" Many seem to be afflicted with lazy though 
I believe talent (uh-oh... a troll word for sure) and memory are intimately associated. What you remember easily is what you have aptitude for. So it's not the number of books one reads, but the number of books/positions/games/tactical patterns/ etc. that one has quick recall for which is key. Just 5 books fully assimilated with all salient points remembered, that would be awesome imo... I'm sure I don't have that... I'm like that bookish A-player N. Pogonina mentioned, I've 'read' scores of books, not one-hundred but all the same quite a few... -- but do I really remember them? Hell no. One nice thing I've found though is that study helps recall. I remember chess games and chess positions now better than I did a few years back. It's the better "chunking" of information I'm able to do because of a lot of study. Ever listen to the post-game interviews of elite players? They remember the games they just played with incredible clarity and will spin-off reams off analysis more easily than I can describe my breakfast.
Again, it's not so much the reading as the eating that is truly important. Eat a chess book a day (make sure you add to, not take away from the basic food groups), and you'll surely make master as soon as you realise you're being an idiot and you should just read the damn things already.
Physicist Robert Oppenhiemer had a genius IQ, was an avid chess player at an early age, but was horrible at chess his entire life. I knew a doctor, intelligent man, when he retired he studied and played all the time, lived slept and ate chess, but he could never get over 1600 rating. If you don't have a talent for it it just ain't gonna happen.
Physicist Robert Oppenhiemer had a genius IQ, was an avid chess player at an early age, but was horrible at chess his entire life. I knew a doctor, intelligent man, when he retired he studied and played all the time, lived slept and ate chess, but he could never get over 1600 rating. If you don't have a talent for it it just ain't gonna happen.
I knew a Applied Maths professor who just loved the game, never missed an evening at the club but just couldnt play chess. In tournaments he played in the C or D section with the kids - he was about 1300. He was a very friendly man - when I was in Grade 10 I first went to the club. Sometimes I took homework with. Whenever he saw I was doing math homework he was quick to grab a pen and took over - doing my home work for me - and completed it in a minute or two - and I always remember how he laughed at what they teach the kids in school.
It was more than a decade I last saw him - I moved to another city. The other day when I walk inot the second hand bookstore I picked up a chess book - and wriiten in front was his name - a very old book.
Two things. I am assuming the name is misspelled and it was Michael de la Maza at the beginning. Then, there is Capablanca who allegedly did not read a single book on chess, other than paging through an endgame book. So, a lot depends on learning style.
It's important to keep in mind that simply reading books doesn't make one a master. I've known top GMs who have read just a few chess books in their life and bookwormish A-class players who claim having read over 100 books. A lot depends on how the quality of the books, how deeply you understand the material, and how you put it into practice.
Please give us the golden recipe (only 3 ingredients)
10,000
Man, I came in here to say this.
Well played.
Books will NOT get you to Master Level strength. But a good program of study, regular play, consulting a coach or mentor, and using about 20 good books should get you to USCF @2000 or CM. But lots of work is still involved.
After that it's an open question whether you can make USCF Master or even NM. But probably not. The time commitment is simply too great, and you probably need to start in your teens, (like gymnastics) or you'll never reasonably expect to make Master.
Just ain't gonna happen. But there are a few exceptions.
Michael de la Maza is currently USCF 2041. So he hasn't done it, and his book was published more than 10,000 hours ago. Q.E.D.
Few have the time, "talent," inclination, money, or O.C.D. to persist in the quest. And the payoff seems small. USCF 2000 puts you in the top 4 percent of active tournament players in the country. That should satisfy most people.
I don't know, I think it should be possible for some to pick the game up later in life and make CM or NM/FM. GM I can see as a stretch though.
Incidentally, if someone would like to fund my current lifestyle so that I can quit my job and focus exclusively on chess we could perform a little experiment....
Two things. I am assuming the name is misspelled and it was Michael de la Maza at the beginning. Then, there is Capablanca who allegedly did not read a single book on chess, other than paging through an endgame book. So, a lot depends on learning style.
The claim that Capablanca never read a book or studied openings is more fiction than fact, Capa loved chess, played constantly, and discussed openings, theoretical novelties, etc with other masters all the time. He just wasn't a nut about it like Alekhine.
Yeah, I've seen that repeated as well and it just rings untrue.
That's what an editor's for.
Interestingly he (Capablanca) actually wrote more of an endgame book. Plus, you do not have to read 'em to write 'em. De la Maza obviously retired from chess. Although in his book he planned to achieve a Master level, you can check out his youtube video, now he is into corporate self help stuff (something about the power of touch, two dudes are sitting on the floor, with their feet touching each other and are very happy. Weird stuff). He also spent an entire year with nothing else but with tactics, the circle of rings, the CT-ART...To me he is an evolutionary dead end (like a Dodo bird), proving that tactics alone can only take you so far.
I'm still going with my initial answer of 10,000, Alex (studies have demonstrated that to be true and extrapolational & stuff).