Now I think excessive studying is unwise unless you love it.

Suppose I study a ton, even to the exclusiong of other stuff I enjoy, and I get to 2000 in 6 months. What good would that do me?

Right now, my strength is in the middle of the bell curve. I can easly find people who are fun to play, and I make enough mistakes that weak players think they might have a chance against me.

At 2000, I'd still lose in open tournaments. I'd also have a hard time finding players of similar strength. Maybe I could make money teaching, if I could find someone with the money and a lack of will to read books.

Even if I give people odds of a rook to even things up, it still would not be fun. Every move they make, I'd know exactly what they need to do to beat me, and would just be hoping they don't play that. If they don't, I win. Why should I feel good about that.

It seems like much chess knowledge is chess specific as you climb the ranks. I'm studying books so I can beat others who did not read those books. As for opening books, the idea is to beat your opponent by studying an opening they are not as familiar with. Some are very dicey, and good for the prepared. What joy is there in beating someone because they did not read the book, and knowing that a grandmaster would have known a sound rebuttal to the opening?

The endgame is full of puzzles we actually have a chance of solving. Learning about it is fun, but also means there is less to be figured out. It is a trade off.

If there was a huge cash prize for solving chess, I'd be more motivated. Even then, not everyone will make it above 2600 no matter how much they study. Master is more likely. So maybe the maximum amount of fun to be had is by just solving tactics problems, and learning the basics of everything else, so I'll always have plenty left to figure out while playing against more typical players.

On second thought, there always is simultaneous chess and blindfold chess, as well as just the joy of teaching.