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.

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.

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

Unorthodox openings are effective against

1. Players who have just memorized opening lines without the ideas behind them. 2. In Blitz games where you don't have the time to think through every move.

A lot of the traps depend on the opponent falling for it. Sometimes they are not the strongest moves in the position and a good player would avoid it and eventually grind out a win. That's why unorthodox openings are less common at higher levels.

And as to why 1.e4 is not fashionable - 1.e4 leads to a more open play - a lot of lines are forcing and could lead to a quick exchange of pieces and then to a draw. Players going for a win try to complicate the situation as much as possible so that a blunder could happen. Every now and then, a GM plays a novelty and everyone follows suit!

The book, Unorthodox Chess Openings by Eric Shiller is a vey handy reference for Chess.com games.  It prepares one to meet almost all odd, weak or unorthodox openings you don't know or have never seen before.

I agree that Shiller's Orthodox Openings is not all that good, but Unorthodox Chess openings is.  Very much so.  There are also some very detailed analyses of some openings such as the Nimzovitch Defense, and the Budapest Defense.