1. a4? Why?

I just finished a game (that I won) with my opponent playing 1.a4.  Is there any reason to do this?  Was he/she just playing around working on some other strategy?  It seems that would put them at a huge disadvantage.  Any thoughts?

theres no advantage. only piece it opens up is a rook, which doesnt even want to be developed yet. control of the b5 square is also pointless. if white wants to waste a tempi and basically "play as black" then a3 is better.. at least with 1.a3 they get to play Nc3 without a pin in some lines

Suicidal Tendencies........

He's a (1078) with over 350 games played. So was he just bored and messing around?

at a roughly a low class-E rank he probably just didnt know any better. at that level moves can be random at times.

Sometimes when frustration arises sporadic impulsive attacking moves are made ;) 

a4 is actually fairly common in lower circles, because one of the first things you learn of (in practice) is the power of the rook. So naturally, people want to get it out right away. It sometimes takes awhile for people to learn that this is a bad idea....

1.a4 (and 1.h4) is not as bad as you may think. But it is still bad. I prefer 1.h4 to attack the kingside. I will develop my pieces as quickly as possible to the kingside direction, e.g with Bb2 fianchetto. It's just a game.

Another bad idea I would like to play is to develop somekind of hedgehog position. My opponent may underestimate the crowded and passive formation but when they over-extend...

I doubt he was just messing around, especially if this was a rated game. I've heard of an opening like this called the crab opening but I havn't really studied it and I have no idea what the stratigy behind it is. He probably just doesn't know what he's doing, or maybe his mid game and end game are okay but he doesn't know any prepared openings, I've seen people like this. How did the rest of the game go?

I think Carlsen played 1.a3 in the ongoing Amber tournament.

Steinitz opened that way in a WC match didn't he? 

How much confidence would you have beating a GM who opened with 1. a4? Regardless of the opening move, you still have to find a way to win. As Tartakower used to say, "Dubious, therefore playable."

Probably a bet or a test of the opening.

Oh no. No no no. If you check the record you will see that he did open 1. a3 v. Blackburne in a tournament playoff match.

Please be more careful in the future? Hmmmm? I mean, my god what a tosser.

What year was that game, goldendog? 

I agree that it is dubious and questionable... but really it isnt 1.a4 that lose a game.. Whatever you play (even 1.e4 or 1.d4) you have to follow up what you have started. (behaviour and consequences)

GM Bent Larsen have played 1.b3, GM Tony Miles played a6 in 1.e4 a6 against Karpov. And people have even won games with black in Damiano Defence.

And, a bad plan is better than no plan.

I've just looked 1.a4 up in GE - it's called the Ware opening and its stats are 30% wins for W and 60% draws. So, next time you're up against a higher rated player and you want to play for a draw - there you go, not.

(4756) Steinitz,William - Blackburne,Joseph Henry [A00]
Vienna playoff-1pl Vienna (2), 29.08.1873

1.a3 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.e4 c5 4.dxc5 Qc7 5.Bd3 Qxc5 6.Ne2 Nc6 7.Be3 Qa5+ 8.Nbc3 d6 9.0-0 Bd7 10.b4 Qd8 11.Rb1 b6 12.Nd5 Nf6 13.Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.Bh6 Ne5 15.h3 Rg8 16.f4 Nc6 17.Qd2 Qc7 18.c4 Nd8 19.Rfc1 Ne6 20.Nc3 Qb7 21.Nd5 Bh8 22.Kh1 Rc8 23.Qf2 Bc6 24.Qh4 Nd4 25.Bg5 Bxd5 26.cxd5 Kd7 27.Bxe7 Rxc1+ 28.Rxc1 Rc8 29.Rd1 Rc3 30.Bf6 Qc8 31.Qg4+ Nf5 32.Bb5+ Kc7 33.Bxc3 h5 34.Qf3 Nh4 35.Bxh8 Qxh8 36.Rc1+ Kb7 37.Qc3 Qd8 38.Qc6+ Kb8 39.Ba6 Lehner, Schwede: Der erste Wiener internationale Schachkongress 1873, p. 247 1-0

At your service. 

Thank you, sir.

I was up a queen, bishop, knight, and pawn at the end.  The game was against row118 on 3/12 if you want to take a look at the game in my archive.  Not that I played that great, but he seemed to play really badly.