Do certain openings make you feel slightly insulted and angry?

I'm a 1.e4 player and I believe there are three best responses to 1.e4; the double king pawn, the French, and the Sicilian.

Whenever my opponent plays something other than those three, I feel slighty (and I must emphasize slightly here) insulted and angry. It's usually not a conscious thought process, but more of a background emotion. I have noticed that should I win the game I'm more likely to make snarky comments at the end. For example, if my opponent plays the Alekhine (or Nimzowitsch) and I win, I may say "Well so much for the Alekhine, guess you should learn not to move your pieces twice in the opening" or something like that.

Here are my thoughts on some of the defenses

- The Alekhine and Scandinavian, in both of these the player is trying to get "their opening" at the cost of doing something bad. In one they're moving a piece twice, in the other they're bringing their queen out early. They are counting on white not knowing the theory to get away with these transgressions. When someone plays the Scandinavian against me, I think to myself "Why are you bringing your queen out early you dingbat?!"

-The Caro-Kann, I don't know why anyone would select this defense since it has a reputation for being so drawish, the only people who should play this are professionals playing in serious tournaments where they really need a draw. I just don't understand they kind of person who goes "hm, everyone says this opening is drawish and boring, I'm going to play that!" Maybe these people just hate playing as Black and are trying to get quick draws in all their Black games so they can go back to playing White? Everytime someone plays the Caro-Kann against me I just think "oh no, you're not getting a draw m'er f'er, I'm going to beat you!"

-Owen's defense, this is a defense where the player as Black thinks they have the luxury of going 1...b6. I win most of my games against this  by playing 2.d4 and most always I'm able to get a lot of space. Still it makes me angry.

So, do you get upset when someone plays the Berlin or the Petroff against you?

I don't have to deal with the Berlin or Petroff because I play the 19th century version of the Ruy Lopez, which is the Danish Gambit.

I actually like all the openings, they're all good in thier own way, I just have this very slight reactionary angry feeling when certain ones are played.

I also get angry when people try to attack me, don't you? I played one game yesterday against someone higher rated on another site. I was black and played the Sicilian Taimanov. I won a pawn but had to endure an attack all throughout the middlegame and basically spend the whole game defending. This whole time my opponent is trying to attack me I'm just getting more and more pissed off. My opponent sac'd his light square bishop to open up my kingside and he had an open g-file right on my king, but I defended everything and at the end I still had a knight but he managed to get all the pawns off the board. Here at the end of the game all my built up anger from being attacked came out and I was like "Congratulations you drew as White you patzer, you must be really proud!"

Thinking back I shouldn't have said that, I can view things objectively now, but just being attacked in a chess game pisses me off at that moment. Somehow I don't just feel like they're attacking my king, I feel like it's a direct attack on me.

Yes, some people suffer from this disease while driving, for example.

I hate when people play unorthodox openings... Not because they give me trouble but because it kills the illusion that I'm actually playing a serious game of chess. It also takes away some instructional value because you don't increase your familiarity with common positions.

I hate it too, like all these animal named openings, "the rat" "the hippo", "the skunk" whatever they're calling these things, where they're playing a bunch of pawns to the 6th rank. It's like what are you doing?!

I mean ok, I don't really "hate it", I do respect the openings but sometimes it feels like the person is taunting you. It's like they're saying "come at me bro", well I'm not going to be provoked I'm just going to gain space and improve my position and try to make it where they're cramped and have nothing to do.

So is your opinion of the Caro based on actual analysis in which black can neutralize every single white try, or is it based on the "reputation" given by dipshit 1500s at your chess club that think its drawish because...uh...well...because that's what all the other 1500s think and...uh...because Karpov played it and he's a drawish pussy, unlike me and my friends at the club 'cause we all play the dragon!

Protip:there are like 8 ways for white to get a interesting, complex position with play on both sides of the board against the Caro.

What is it that made you select the Caro-Kann to learn and play?

I don't hate the Caro-Kann, I just don't understand why somebody would spend their chess study time on it rather than something else. Is it because you like the name? When I first started playing and was selecting my openings, I almost chose the Caro-Kann because I think the name sounds Egyptian and cool. Of course I know now that it's named after two Germans and it's not Egyptian, but it still sounds cool.

But it does have the reputation for being drawish not just amongst club players and certainly this must be a consideration of those who choose to play it? Like they're thinking "I don't like playing Black I don't care if I draw my Black games I just want to be White again."

love playing anti theory here because you can win against anyone in live chess...they cannot manage their time control

The Caro is not even remotely drawish, as it invites white to play a variety of structures and plans that, especially in the advance variation, keep peices on the board and produce rich and strategically complex positions. 

You, however, can continue choosing openings because they sound cool and think whatever you want because, you know, it has a reputation and all.

The more people know about middlegame advantages and how to use them the less your "anti-theory" is going to work on them. I can actually play faster against people who make goofy moves in the opening because it's quite simple to get a good middlegame position, and the decisions and moves can be made quickly.  if you don't take the center I'm going to. If you fack around moving your pawns to the sixth rank and your knights to stupid squares I'm just going to gain space and get my pieces better placed than you. Please keep the "anti-theory" (i.e. making goofy, random opening moves that give your opponent a winning middlegame) coming.

In my case, it was actually fairly specific: I was playing the French, and tried the Caro-Kann looking to play something similarly-solid but with an easier solution to the Queen's Bishop problem.

The Caro-Kann actually isn't the best choice for getting draws, if that's your goal for some reason, because it's not very forceful: you're giving White more space (which helps with coordinating the pieces) in exchange for a position with almost no weaknesses. Thus, unless you want to get slowly steamrolled, active play is necessary (frequently, pushing on the queenside after castling is something I might do). On the flip side, if you play patiently (not passively!) and pay attention, White will induce weaknesses in his own camp which can be easy targets later in the game.

Here's a game I just finished where I beat a higher-rated player with the Caro-Kann, and a few comments (note that this is far from what anyone would call "best play"!):

If a game makes you angry, and or upset, i would suggest something else to play.  No matter what my opponent plays, i have fun, and enjoy the game.

There are several layers of emotions on the way to 'slghtly' angry.

Most of them are well beyond how anyone should feel about an opening response.

Nice game there in the Caro-Kann NuclearSlurpee. I do like the Caro-Kann and consider it the fourth best after the best three of the double king pawn, French, and Sicilian, it just isn't something that I myself prioritize studying.

@I_Am_Second, kleelof, and Whip_Kitten it is not an unpleasant feeling, sometimes a little anger can be fun. I'm sure you guys are like computers though and never experience any emotion playing chess. For me chess is an emotional game filled with anger, fear, joy, and excitement. I'm am emotional player and if we are to imagine the pieces as being emotional beings as well with hopes and dreams (as Nimzowitsch seemed to do, and many other GMs as I've heard them refer to the pieces as "guys") then feeling emotion in chess is necessary in order to keep in touch with how our pieces are feeling and if they're happy, scared, or discontent. If we keep our pieces happy then they'll keep us happy.

Sure. But using the word 'angry' to describe how you can feel about the first couple of moves in a game seems a bit strong and out of place.

I hate when black plays the French against me...

I hate the French so much, I won't even eat french fries.

I emphasized it was slightly, and I don't think it's out of place at all since we're all taught the basic principles when we learn chess and some openings have a taunting aspect to them. If anything for a chess player to be confronted with a violation of the basic principles and not even feel a twinge of anger at a wrong being done is out of place.

Obviously its perfectly normal to experience some excitement, nervousness, happiness, sadness, regarding the game.  But to get angry over an opening seems a bit much.