23. You believe anyone can be an NM after a few years of playing and studying.
1000 signs you suck at chess

24. You think Scholar's mate is unbeatable and are surprised when your opponent allows it amd still wins.

23. You believe anyone can be an NM after a few years of playing and studying.
True - and "anyone" is the key word here. Sorry haters, but online bullet/blitz do not count xD. Why can't people just accept that becoming the elite in almost anything takes time and a lot of effort - especially chess; you probably won't be skyrocketing rating overnight.

25. Gives way too many checks because attacking the King is how you win, yet counter-intuitively you rip open lines in your own position when playing 3+ games.

29. You say things completely irrelevant to the game at hand during analysis when trying to prove something is good for you.

30. You believe that beating a titled player in a single (often super short time control) game automatically makes you the superior player (as if such a win were even likely in the first place xD).

32. When you constantly make "even" trades like two minor pieces for a Rook and a pawn simply because they are equal in point values - not taking into account factors such as piece activity or that 2 minor pieces are usually better than one Rook and measly pawn.
(p.s. suspiciously specific details because I've seen players do this fairly often)

35. Your opponent, who is 350(!) points higher rated than you, plays a winning pseudo sacrifice, so you immediately complain to the TD that he was cheating by getting advice from other players, even though the people watching the game are 300 points lower rated than him.
22. You think you have found an improvement in a grandmaster classic game simply because you learned about weak squares last week and are pretty sure they just weakened their Kingside.