What is up with all these weird pawn openings?

I can't keep up with these strange openings, like 1. a4 or 1.h4

don't even get me started on pawns in front of knights. what's the point?

@1
It is like 'Let us play chess, not theory'.
The weird pawn openings are not even as bad as the gambits: they do not lose any pawn.

Just look at this game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/56898071741

In his defense, I panicked very badly.

@3
That is the point: you are out of your comfort zone on move 1.
Those weird moves are not even that bad.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2012525 

Fair enough

That's a possibility, but what's the point at ELO 400?

This is not entirely accurate.  1. f3 and 1. g4 are worse than many gambits.

1. h4 is perfectly fine. In fact, Kasparov opened this way sometimes.

Pawns in front of knights are much better positionally, as your knight is now not blocking the pawn and together, they exert more pressure onto the center. All GMs prefer to open this way (except the late van Geet )

Just ignore those moves and focus on the centre. All the same ideas apply as if your opponent played a familiar opening, but you get an extra move to focus on the area of the board which matters. The a and h pawns will come into the game eventually but they're of no concern to you on move number one.

Don't hope for your opponent to stick to book openings deep into the game at 400 rating. The book isn't a whole lot of use to you unless you understand why certain moves are book moves anyway. Only then will you be able to fully exploit the inaccuracies which result from deviating from it.

Nonsense. There are gambits which are just as good as any other opening and there are terrible pawn openings. For instance, Vienna gambit, Scotch gambit, Queen's gambit are as good as any other opening. You have to go on a case by case basis. Here is a Scotch gambit by masters https://lichess.org/PxnqRafA

Right, like I can and will play against gambits, but the Kádas and Ware openings specifically make me panic the most, to the point that I know the names. 

i luvem !...check my games...u use them almost every time. 1...h5 s'a little harder w/ black. but 1. h4 w/ white is fun...yee !

but as a fair warning, using these against 2200+ players is much harder cuz they seize the center right away (hint-hint) and they know what to do once they get the center.

Evans gambit is also as good as any other opening, Kasparov beat Anand with it, here Caruana played it against Wesley So, it was equal out of the opening, then Caruana was winning later in the middlegame, but then he made a couple of inaccuracies which gave away the advantage and then he blundered the game away. https://lichess.org/UayafTnB#53

and here is the Kasparov game against Anand https://lichess.org/rCR5rWCS

@12
Yes, there are a few good gambits, but most are unsound.
A weird pawn move at worst is loss of a tempo, not as severe as loss of a pawn.

@9
1 g4? is probably just as bad as Englund Gambit, King's Gambit, Danish Gambit...
Nevertheless all of these are playable at IM level.
IM Basman regularly opened 1 g4, e.g. in the British Championship.

1 f3 is presumably not bad at all. The move is regularly played later: in the Sämisch of the King's Indian, in the Sämisch of the Nimzovich Indian, in the Jugoslav Attack against the Dragon, against the Najdorf, against the Pirc etc. etc. So it cannot be all that bad on move 1.

Here is Ivanchuk beating Peter Svidler in the Vienna gambit. https://lichess.org/JPlNgSFe#63

@15
Kasparov played the Evans Gambit twice: against Piket and against Anand. He won both games. He had the advantage of the surprise. They both had probably been preparing for a Ruy Lopez or a Scotch opening. Due to the surprise both opponents were taken out of their comfort zone.

The weird pawn moves do the same, but without giving up a pawn.

Yeah, but gambits give better positions than the pawn openings.

@19
Yes, but a pawn is a pawn. Each pawn is a queen to be.
A pawn is about 3 tempi.
So giving up a tempo is not as bad as giving up a pawn.

It is irrelevant whether you give up a pawn or not when the position is equal. In all of the games that I have shown black either never had any advantage or it had small advantage which is probably due to low depth stockfish as players would play the best recommended moves by the engine and the game would later be 0.0

The sole reason Basman is still an IM is because of his affinity for bad openings.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1026281

It is only playable if your opponent has never spent 5 minutes looking at it (i.e. the surprise factor).  You weaken your kingside, make it difficult to castle, and when Black takes over the center and blocks the long diagonal, your whole opening strategy is dead in the water.  In fact, if you analyze the position after g4 d5, Black is almost winning on move 2!

1. f3 has similar problems:  it weakens the kingside and inhibits development.  The fact that you can play f3 it in the Najdorf (for example) after you have developed your kingside is not the same as playing it when you have developed nothing.  To make such an assertion is simply a horrible attempt at trolling.