I've recently been interested in figuring out how to play with corner openings at 3-3, but I'm not sure how to progress with the game from there. To date, the only times I've used them, I've mostly ignored them until my opponent created a bunch of weak groups, at which point I used them as a stable group against which to ram them. This doesn't seem to be the idea that most people play them with, though.

So, how does one generally aim to develop after playing, say, two 3-3s? What kind of game is one asking for when one plays them, aside from one with some fairly definite territory to start? How do you coordinate moves around the board with them?

You might try looking at some pro games where people play them:

In Takeo Kajiwara's "The Direction of Play" (I swear this is going to become my catchphrase), he covers how one would develop, ideally, from each corner stone.

For the 3-3, he simply says that the move aims at disposing of the corner with one move. It's low, extremely safe, and you're guaranteed a small corner.

He also says that consequently there is no direction of play from the 3-3 point. The reason one would play the 3-3 is normally for speed. I've seen it used primarily as White as a means of keeping up the pace with Black and disrupt his fuseki.

On a more personal note, I always feel awkward approaching a 3-3 stone. Or playing anywhere near it. Definitely something I have to work on.

A pro database will definitely help. First, you'll discover that games with two 3-3s in empty corners aren't incredibly common, especially in this era of larger komi. Of course, this doesn't mean it isn't playable at the amateur level or anything like that.

Cho Chikun wrote a a book on the 3-3 point. (It's not just 3-3 openings, though, because it contains examples of the timing of playing at the 3-3 when a higher move such as an opponent's 4-4 is already in place. But there are examples from his own games where he plays two 3-3s.)

So, it reflects a territorial style, although one can have a territorial style without playing 3-3s. There is more than one way to play territorial style; e.g., Kitani Minoru and Cho Chikun don't exactly have the same style. One is aiming for early solidity and territorial advantage, but of course this comes at a price. It helps to be good at sabaki and invading or reducing moyos as your opponent may develop more thickness or center control. I think one can also play it with the notion of playing a balanced game and winning in the endgame. Thinking in terms of "develop" and "coordinate" may mean you might have to, well, change your thinking about the opening. If you have speed and are blighting corners early, thinking of disruption and discoordination of your opponent's plan might be other thought process.

Really, the best thing may be just to try it and see what you can learn from playing! Go is a game of enormous flexibility. When I first studied 3-3 games, I was shocked to find games where pros sacrificed the 3-3 stone! It happens more than you think. It is pretty amazing what is possible if you can discard preconceptions and not get too attached to early plans.

Based on the game that Emeraldemon posted above, I also got the impression that it's more associated with an amashi strategy than anything else. I remember seeing a game on Go of Ten where opening with two 3-3 points was described as a way to break the game up into lots of small groups as well. I think this is the link.

I agree that playing with it is the best way to learn, but it's more difficult when your opponents don't really know how to treat it either. I guess it just makes the learning slower, though.

I'm using kombilo to do the search, and GoGoD as my database. I highly recommend both (GoGoD comes bundled with a windows version of kombilo).

Here's two wins from Mok Jinseok 9d:

If you have access, Go World #5 & #6 have some nice 3-3 articles. Fwiw, they mostly discuss the below patterns

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]