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 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...

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.

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.

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."