Why are people drawn to unorthodox openings, is it snobery, elitistism or some thing more prosaic?      try UNORTHODOX CHESS OPENINGS.  yahoo groups.

I think it's because less people know those, so it gives the people who DO know the opening an edge, because the less knowledgable people will most likely fall for some common trap in the opening.

It's also a way for newer players to avoid getting into trouble in main lines when they don't have as much knowledge of theory.  

 good point.

For example, 1. d4 is becoming much more popular nowadays. People are worried about the amount of possibilities after 1. e4

I think people like them because they are new and refreshing. Breathing life into the sometimes trying game of chess.

I personally don't like openings that have those sharp opening traps, because I feel that they kind of take away from the greatness of chess.

another good point, e4 is unfashionible.  why?

It's cliche, perhaps?

 elaborate please.   whats greatness?

Like I find chess to be good because it's kind of balanced for both players. Yeah, I have heard about the black is not as good thing, but I mean, just because you're a certain age, a certain gender, a certain race, etc, doesn't really decide your chess playing strength.

But those little traps, I find them to be a little "cheap". I dunno - they kind of take the fun out of the game, when you've just fallen into some quick opening trap.

1.e4 is frequently met with ...c5, the Sicilian Defense, which gives some of the very highest success rates for black.  And there is tons of theory associated with it, which can be daunting.

I've had a pretty good record vs the Sicilian.

 I dunno. I learn the most after i have made a serious blunder in the opening. When i play in a USCF tourney, where you have just paid an entry fee, I use whateveer legal tactics i can to get the win. Cheap or otherwise. If my opponnent respects my playing ability, then he will attempt the same thing.

For many, myself included, UCO's are appealing because they offer the possibility of making new discoveries or venturing into unexplored territory.  Most of the mainstream openings have been analyzed to death but that's not the case with UCO's. 

When you love an opening it doesn't matter how objectively sound it is -- you love it because it's fun to play.  Despite what you think, it's actually possible to win a chess game with an opening that's never been played at the GM-level.  But I suspect you know that already.  That's probably what prompted this thread....

no i didn,t, its just that some UCO do seem shock value only, made me wonder.

It's more anti-elitism, the will to play moves that the good players don't.

Perhaps it's insecurity, people can blame their loss on their "risky gambit" instead of on their own mistakes.

I seem to find it best to start learning mainstream, main-line, middle of the road, common and popular openings and gradually work my way out to the obscure regions everyones on about ( this two-decade process is now well under way!).

I seem to encounter 'normal' openings ( say, some version of QGD) much, much, much more often than wierdo openings (say, some kind of Grob three-pawn gambit) so it makes sense (to me) to familiarise myself with the common stuff first.

Or perhaps it's that they enjoy delivering a psychological sucker punch to their opponent by winning a game with an opening that's theoretically unsound?

To each his own.

i,m impressed, all replies were sound and helpful, devoid of the somewhat pointless and childish replies.