How many books to read before you're a master?

I like to go through the books I have, note the principles, and pretend I'm in a real game situation when looking at master games and writing down my thoughts.  Then, I find calculation and positional assessment errors and adjust it accordingly. 

First task: Take note of imbalances.

Second task: seek out which weaknesses are most exploitable, and make value judgements on strengths and weaknesses.

Third task: Calculate the forcing lines, if any.  This includes what I can leave en prise.

Fourth task: Calculate non-forcing moves if all checks, captures, etc., also seeing what I can leave en prise if I can get away with it.  If not, then move said piece.

Priority one: Can this piece checkmate?

Priority two: Can it win material?

Priority three: Does it have an outpost, such as blocking d6/d3 keeping them cramped?

Priority four: Since none of the moves on their side of the board is viable, defend the piece.

Priority five: Since defending with a pawn leaves a permanent weakness, I'll simply move the piece back. 

you can surpass 1400 playing for 5 years, or read 3 books on the basic principles , tactics, and strategy.  Plus 1 year of practice applying what you have learn and be at 1500+

Uh-oh, looks like somebody took me seriously (I hate when that happens). 

I too compare the relative number of things in order to judge their value.  For example there are more socks in my dresser than dimes on my counter.  The conclusion is both obvious and terrifying.

So the drawback to books is they can't think for you?  It's just me at the table and I have to think for myself?  But wait a minute, your first statement is that books are great for getting you to think.  So this is actually in support of books.

Read 'em all. Mebbe it will help.

1. Read cook book

2. Eat own food

3. Become chess master (???)
4. Profit.

Multiply the number of days it takes to get to 2000 by your IQ and divide that by how many players don't resign in lost positions. 

Profit?

It's a reference to a southpark espisode containing underpants gnomes.  In fact if you google "underpants gnomes" you'll find pictures like these:

Oh, thank God it turned out to be a spoof!

I know a National Master around 2200 elo which only read a big book in brazilian called "Xadrez Básico" which is equivalent to "Basic Chess" in English. The book covered all aspects of the game but it's not the typical basic chess book which only teaches you to move the pieces, for instance there were lessons about how to play against or with the isolated queen's pawn, etc...

X(number) times Books  = Master.

I wish! I start writing books and make my millions.

Then write a book on how i made my millions.

Then another on what it is like after i made my millions.

Ok what i am saying is quality over quantity.

Have to say i have read more books than articles. If i put all the articles an make books i say 20 books. I figure a master must have read 5 times that many easy.

.....as opposed to all those sensible usages of the phrase "underpants gnomes" ?

read plenty but finnished non!

When I read all three books from Botvinnik (Bovinnik games), I won a tournament soon after.

I think if you read about 100 books that will be ok! You will be a master, but you have to really read them carefully, understanding all the concepts. And you have to love chess as well. That means reading books for 6 hours will not bother you :)

I read "Catcher in the Rye" and "East of Eden" and it didn't help one iota.

Catcher in the Rye had a profound impact on my language. Because Holden Caulfield swears almost exactly as my father--they are the same age--reading the book brought to life speech from my mouth that I remembered from my childhood. I think that I was 29 when I read the book.

There's a favourite anecdote of a clubmate of mine who was a friend of Ken Lloyd who played for my club long before I was there. Apparently Ken just had four books: My System, Chess Fundamentals, Alekhines Best Games and MCO. He finished 2nd or 3rd in the British Championships one year.

We noticed a game of his appeared in the Times recently from 1960. He played the KID against Szabo. His opening was rubbish, but his middlegame play was excellent and eventually won. Apparently this was typical for him. As they say "chess is the art of analysis"..

Well, I much preferred "Franny and Zooey" and the Glass family of prodigies anyway.