I've been playing go for a few months now and am somewhere around 23k. I've recently been spending time working on fuseki and I have a question. Do you think it's better for someone at my level to focus on one specific type of fuseki and become comfortable with that or should I try a number of different types and see what fits best?

The reason I ask is that one of the things I've been doing is working from a low Chinese fuseki and learning the different responses that opponent's give.

Thanks.

I'm about 16kyu and just play the sanrensei, because my opponent can't prevent it and because the ideas feel the same to me as a handicap game, and I don't feel very often that whether I win/lose the game has much to do with this choice.

Personally, I don't feel that specific openings should be on your radar at all at 23kyu. I don't anticipate worrying about them until I am several stones stronger--for me it's all about keeping my groups alive, getting a reasonable share of the board, and doing well in fights.

I'm not that much stronger than you, so take this with a grain of salt. If you're comfortable with the fuseki that you happen to be playing, then keep playing it. I play the Kobayashi. If my opponent screws it up then I just go with the flow. Whatever you do, make sure you're comfortable playing it.

_________________
My plan to become an SDK is here.

IMO, you should not worry about playing any particular fuseki. They rarely last longer than 8 moves, anyway. Play what looks good to you, and try out new ideas. Have fun while you learn.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think either way is fine. I had stuck with San Ren Sei because I had a book that dealt with it, and it was relatively straight forward. Then I experimented with the Chinese Opening, much for the same reason. I believe the main benefit was that I felt more "secure" about the first few moves and the possible "follow ups", and had specific recurring situations to analyze. On the other hand, just reading "Open Theory Made Easy" or "In The Beginning" will give you plenty of basics to be able to make decent or even great moves in the opening, which may be more beneficial in the longer run.

Feel free to play around. I can virtually promise you that you haven't lost any of your games in the first 8 moves .

I think you don't need to bother about full "fuseki strategy" (example: san ren sei, chinese opening, kobayashi opening, shusaku opening, ni ren sei) at this stage. Just play a mix of komoku, hoshi and san-san as starting moves and try your best from there. At 23k, the game is not down to fuseki... it really is in basic concepts of shape, strategy (direction of play) and tactics. You shouldn't worry too much in specializing yourself at this stage.

That's just my feeling based on my personal experience...

As long as you know and apply the fundamentals (I'd highly recommend Opening Theory Made Easy for that), either way is fine. Choose what you enjoy more.

Thanks for the suggestions. I have read Opening Theory Made Easy, and it clarified a number of things for me. I do get the feeling that I'll end up reading it a number of times and get something new each time. Before reading it, I was spreading myself too thin in the opening and getting cut to shreds. I'm still getting cut to shreds, but I now have stronger groups from which to work.

My point in playing a specific fuseki was to establish, for myself, a familiar base from which to work, sort of like a specific grip in judo. And like a grip in Judo, it's not the best one in all circumstances, but it's a starting point. It often seems like a game is a tremendous amount of chaos with little bits of clarity interspersed. I know that as I play and study more, the scales will eventually even and maybe (hopefully) tip. However, in the meantime, I feel like playing a certain opening will give me something to grow from.

I have been playing the double 3-3. Well because Cho Chikun did it. Anyway my hypothesis in America at least is that the the local clubs enforce star point handicaps, so when given the choice for an opening fuseki players tend to play those, therefore they are popular, pros need to write about them to sell articles and books, and they need to win with them to validate their points.

If you are interested in alternative Fuseki's, you might find it interesting that AGA rules are free handicaps thus you can place your handicaps anywhere you want, as if white passed however many handicaps you have.

Anyway I feel that working out the joseki and fuseki for the non standard openings gives me an edge especially in faster games, though there isn't as much literature out there, also the 3-3 joseki tend to be much simpler so if you don't like studying huge amounts of joseki.

As 3-3 relates to komi, it certainly would have an advantage as white with larger komi, but if you play it as black you may not develop fast enough. Oddly enough the 3-3 often develops into a large territorial framework, which I don't quite understand exactly why this happens, maybe my opponents make a mistake, of course sometimes one of my groups dies when I make a mistake...

Your analogy with judo is fairly accurate. You want to learn the "grip" so that you can counter it effectivly. Knowing how to develop from a fuseki yourself is just the side effect I feel. Use a fuseki as a learning tool. Lets say you open low chinise when ever you can. You'll start to get a feel for where you really really do not want your opponent to jump into. Now when your playing W against a low chinese... well you know where to play.

Of course no fuseki is perfect, and for us Kyu's the fuseki we choose(as long as it follows at least basic theory) is probably not winning the game for us. So there is something to be said for playing what seems fun each game.

If you do lock into a specific fuseki, change it up every few weeks. It is really helpful to know what your opponent might be aiming for based on their opening.

AGA Rules are not free handicap...

I think you have this spectacularly backwards. There's a lot of material about 4-4 points because it's the most popular professional corner move. It's the most popular because it works well for them. And it's popular among amateurs because amateurs ape professionals. Pros do indeed write about them more, but that's because professional go popularised them and amateurs want in on the action, not because amateurs have their own ideas that professionals need to pander to.

There's definitely a case for saying that many amateurs pay too much attention to popular professional styles. This includes avoiding specific moves like 3-3 just because it seems unusual, and of course many people achieve great results from deliberately playing 'unprofessional' moves. But I think you're putting too much thought into the cause.

also 33 is almost universally considered slow by professionals. they use whatever works to win. if something is inefficient they will be beaten.

I play double 3-3 a lot, and don't agree that 3-3 is slow - it takes the corner in one move just like 4-4. I think the issue is with it being low and also harder to develop.

I agree that its not horribly slow. Its slow enough that the pros don't prefer it.

Probably for most amateur games the difference is not noticeable.

I think what you meant was that both 3-3 and 4-4 do not urge a shimari move, allowing you to move on freely.

The rest of this post is not in response to you.

4-4 exerts influence while claiming no territory. With two more moves, the 4-4 can be enclosed, in contrast to the 3-4 which only requires one additional move. 3-3 is a territorial move, it takes the corner in one move. This is why it is sometimes used when a person wishes to rapidly develop and move on. Indeed, a move on the 4-4 invites the 3-3, gladly giving up the corner all the while.

Through the natural course of play, a person might find themselves wishing a stone which was previously on the third line, would be on the fourth, or the other way around. This is just another part of strategy.

Of course, a person could play 3-3 under their 4-4, taking corner but, well....

The 5-4 and 5-3 also share this idea of influence over straight territory.

The biggest notion I would stress about playing in the corner, regardless of your move is that you placed the first stone there. This makes all the difference.

What is meant by "slow" is a bit ambiguous. I generally hear pros describe openings using the 3-3 and 4-4 points as relatively "fast."

EDIT: I'm not saying those who say the 3-3 is "slow" are wrong--but rather it isn't clear what they mean by "slow". I do understand (at least a little) why it is described as "fast."

I'll agree with that.

I don't know if pros actually call the 3-3 point slow, though I do know that fashion has strongly moved away from it. I would say that it's fast in that a 3-3 stone is self-sufficient: it doesn't look for a second stone right away the way a 3-4 or 3-5 point does. Thus, it allows a fast paced style where you get around the board a lot in the opening. I think that's why Go Seigen liked it. If it's slow, it's slow in that it just doesn't do enough--combining its influence and territory, you just don't get enough, compared to the other corner points.

Those would be different meanings of fast and slow, though obviously also related.

_________________
Occupy Babel!