I'm trying to figure out why people do it.

 

http://ontheroadtochessmaster.com/confused-by-opening-avoidance/

The first four paragraphs:

Confused by Opening Avoidance

If you had played more on chess.com, we would be able to test your theory by looking at Game Explorer and seeing how you did against "garbage" openings. However, since you have played less than 300 games here on chess.com, the sample size in your case is probably not large enough.

It doesn't appear that you have encountered either the 2. f4 French or the 2Na3 Sicilian here.  

// Were you talking about encountering these things in tournaments or in online chess?

It may be useful to realize some people are concerned with trying to maximize their results without learning (or learning as little as possible). So for example maybe the focus on time management or getting out of book as early as possible and they might raise their rating 50 points by making small adjustments like this.

I agree with your article though that for people who are interested in a more long term improvement, with bigger rating goals, should play classical lines at least in the beginning.

Talking about the discussion of them in the forums.

I don't play many games here for various reasons.

But I think a lot of the people discussing those openings would be better served by not playing them.

its because of the allowed access to database that some choose to play unorthodox lines ,i went through a 1 d3 phase for a bit here with good results as i had my experience of its quirks and my opponents didnt unless they did the sensible thing and thought for themselves why 1 d3 is unorthodox

i wonder how it was in the early days of hypermodernism , that must have seemed like blasphemy to those queen /king gambiteers lol

1 d3 now is on the database lol , chess is always evolving

The openings I play in OTB/league games are definitely chosen to avoid having to learn lots of theory (e.g. French Fort Knox, KID exchange var etc.), and I think that's fair enough/legitimate if you haven't got much time to commit to chess. Sure these lines might not be the theoretical gold standards, but if it reliably leads to a playable/solid position I don't see the problem. (I will mention though, that there are certain 'main lines' that I do play and I don't avoid all theory; for example I'm perfectly happy to play the White side of the open Catalan where you don't immediately recover the pawn with Qa5+)

I do agree with you though about people playing completely wacky lines to avoid theory. It seems silly as there are plenty of sound ways of playing that aren't heavily theoretical. But I never complain when facing these lines, as it often means I end up better out of the opening!

Nice article btw!

As black I play the french defence, fort knox and advance mainly out of experience. The only opening where I am totally booked is the Benoni. As white the scotch gambit, but I hate the mainline, so I gambit other pawns (b4, c3, etc). Against the Sicilian (open), caro (Ng5 line), french (advance), petroff (3.d4), Scandinavian (anything), Alekhine (anything). I know almost no theory, so I play mostly out of experience.

I don't consider the Fort Knox to be garbage and I played it myself for a year or so.

The bulk of players on this site are playing much faster time controls than 3 days per move.  And it's easy to sidestep your opponents' opening prep by simply sidestepping (many) mainline openings.

Indeed, why bother playing into various main lines (with huge theory) in this "speedy" environment?  Hence the alleged "avoidance."

I've had a very high success rate in OTB chess using 2.c3 against Sicilian, 2.Qe2 against French, and 2.Bc4 against Caro Kann (even beat a 2300 master).

More examples are that as black I play Norwegian Defense against Ruy Lopez and Chigorin Defense against 1.d4.

I think playing sidelines is a very pragmatic solution to battle against people who spend tons of time studying opening theory and memorizing moves. Anytime I play a mainline opening I always find myself in a time disadvantage going into the middlegame with an inferior position because I might get tricked on move order or have some piece on the wrong square.

However, playing sidelines I almost always emerge with a time advantage out of the opening and end up in a middlegame position that my opponent either doesn't like or hasn't seen before. Sometimes I'm objectively slightly worse, but it's equal enough for me to conjure up a decent game out of it.

Some people ask me, "Why don't you just study openings?" My answer is 1. I don't have that much time. 2. I've tried that in the past and found out that I forget lines over time anyways. 3. I've lost interest in studying opening theory.

Hope that helps answer your initial question about "opening avoidance".

I think part of the reason that there are a lot of people who go to lengths to avoid mainline openings is that they equate the process of memorizing countless lines with 'opening theory'. But memorizing lines isn't a theoretical type of study. It's practical, and kinda boring. If you're really trying to learn about opening theory, you should be trying to learn things that lead you to choosing good moves through the opening, without memorizing anything. who cares if there's a hyphenated name you'll never remember for what you played? - even if your opponent does know the name. The test would be when you move 'out of book'. As long as you know why YOU chose that move, and it's not an obvious blunder, your opponent very likely won't know how to capitalize anyway.

Because people are cowards.  

Openings like 2Qe2 and especially 2c3 are perfectly good. At one point in OTB English club chess, was meeting 2c3 far more than "mainlines". Naturally would be prepared for these sidelines, as much as mainlines. Anyway the OP wasn't really against these, was more about completely random choices. 

OTB players develop an opening rep, to help them understand the positions they are playing, and guide them making reasonable moves for themselves. The quality of chess understanding in the chess com opening forums isn't very high. The apparantly strong online players able to play anything with good results, are frankly speaking using software. There are also a number of trolls, who seem to hate opening preparation so much, that they attempt to disrupt and derail, the few decent threads. So in short wouldn't take too much notice of the chess com opeming threads.