Answers.Body: <p>The question "on which side to attack?" is already flawed. In many positions, a direct attack isn't appropriate. For an attack to have good chances of success, you need some sort of advantage, such as a lead in development or extra space on one side of the board. You don't really have any advantages that would help you launch an attack on the kingside - arguably your bishop pointing that way, but it's not much. Your real advantage in this position is your extra pawn, which can eventually help you make a passed pawn in an endgame. Castling on opposite sides and going for a pawn storm is an extremely high risk strategy that doesn't have any positional factors supporting it, and doesn't exploit your advantage, the extra pawn. A good starting point in this position is getting your king to safety and getting the rooks in the game.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-05-20T03:52:11.270Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-05-20T03:52:11.270Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nate
Answers.Body: <p>I look at this position and think: </p>
  
  <p>1: you castle short because of the open b-file.
  2: you play Rad8 and e5 to limit his bishop.
  3: followed by things like f6 and Bd5 to reposition the black light-squared bishop.</p>
  
  <p>Seems like a reasonable plan to me. I would not castle long in this position. Gives white to many attacking options.
  Not all positions call for direct attacks on the king position. this looks like one of them to me at first glance.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-09T20:24:00.723Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-08-09T20:24:00.723Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.Body: <p>I had a similar (but not the same) question <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/15006/is-opposite-side-castling-an-advantage">here</a>.</p>
  
  <p>Castling queenside would allow your four pawns and both rooks to push the opposing  king, with support from the light square bishop. This would allow you to pose a big threat on the king, protected only by two pawns and a bishop facing four pawns, two rooks, and possibly a bishop. The white rooks and queen would be somewhat blocked from joining the action due to the white pawn structure, reducing white's chances of defending their king.</p>
  
  <p>Castling kingside would allow you to push all of your pieces on the flank. Your queen is already there, and the three pawns, bishop, and rook could quickly launch an attack from the B and C files. The isolated pawn on A2 can possibly be taken, leaving white with 2 pawns against 3 on the queenside. Support from your major pieces and the bishop would create a solid attack, and trading would be an even greater disadvantage for white after A2 is taken.</p>
  
  <p>Either way, it is technically possible to overcome white. It is unlikely that a human would be able to forsee the outcomes which the computer sees, and I cannot give an exact reason for why it would prefer short castling.</p>
  
  <p>My suggestion is that perhaps it would be better to castle kingside, because then you would have all of your pieces coordinated in one attack. Queenside castling would leave the bishop and queen slightly excluded due to white's pawn structure, reducing their effectiveness in a pawn attack on the white king.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-09T13:46:18.263Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-08-09T13:52:07.853Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-04-13T12:48:53.737Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Aric
Answers.Body: <p>Bad question.
  You have no attack,  especially on the king.</p>
  
  <p>Castle 0-0 and get on with the game positionally.
  There is not enough material to do any attacking especially the king.</p>
  
  <p>Castle long  and White will have the attacking chances such as they are. </p>
  
  <p>You are a pawn up but with bishops of opposite colors.  This will be hard to win no matter what you do.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-23T21:25:15.027Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-01-23T21:25:15.027Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.Body: <p>You should castle "short" (on the king side). because you want to attack on the queen side without exposing your king.</p>
  
  <p>1) White is short a pawn because of his missing b pawn. If you castle "long" and put your king on that side, White's open b file (and the black diagonal to b6) become compensation. If you don't, he's just a pawn down.</p>
  
  <p>2) Your queen is powerfully placed on the queen side. You want to move up your pawns to support your queen, without exposing your king, or allowing your queen to be "pinned" by a rook. White has his queen on the king side and you don't, so it doesn't make sense to attack there.</p>
  
  <p>3) Your best chances of getting an "outside" passed pawn are on the a and b files, so you want to advance those pawns, with your c pawn in support.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-08-10T02:37:48.733Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-08-10T02:37:48.733Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Body: <p>I played black and was a pawn up. My plan was to castle on the opposite side from white's king, then use my majority on that side to pawn storm him. So on the turn shown below, I was about to castle long.</p>
  
  <p>After we drew, I analysed the game with an engine, which preferred castling short and pushing the a-pawn, so it seems I should have done the exact opposite of my plan.</p>
  
  <p>My question is, how should I have decided on which side to attack in this position? Why was my choice wrong?</p>
  
  <p>Thanks in advance.</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "r3k2r/1bp2ppp/pp2p3/8/8/2qPBP1P/P1P1Q1P1/R4RK1 b kq - 1 16"]
  
  1. e4 e6
  2. e5 d5
  3. exd6 Bxd6
  4. Nf3 Nf6
  5. Bd3 b6
  6. Bb5+ Nbd7
  7. Nc3 Bb7
  8. d3 a6
  9. Bxd7+ Qxd7
  10. O-O Ng4
  11. h3 Ne5
  12. Nxe5 Bxe5
  13. Qe2 Qc6
  14. f3 Bxc3
  15. bxc3 Qxc3
  16. Be3 O-O-O
  17. Bd2 Qb4
  18. Be3 Qc3
  19. Qd2 Qxd2
  20. Bxd2 Bc6
  21. Bc3 f6
  22. Rad1 Ba4
  23. Rd2 e5
  24. Rc1 g5
  25. d4 exd4
  26. Rxd4 Rxd4
  27. Bxd4 Rf8
  28. c3 c5
  29. Bf2 Re8
  30. Re1 Kc7
  31. Bg3+ Kb7
  32. Rxe8 Bxe8
  33. Bd6 f5
  34. g4 fxg4
  35. hxg4 h5
  36. Be7 hxg4
  37. fxg4 Bd7
  38. Bxg5 Bxg4
  39. Kf2 Kc6
  40. Ke1 Be6
  41. a3 Kb5
  42. Bd8 Ka5
  43. Kd2 Ka4
  44. Bxb6 c4
  45. Bc5
  </code></pre>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-09T12:15:24.047Z
Comments.Text: Well, you'll need many many moves to reach the white king. By then, Black would have more than sufficient time to counter your attacks.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-09T12:16:25.237Z
Comments.Text: Furthermore, wing attack is usually recommended only when you have the advantage there. In your position, you have no advantage in the kingside. Your kingside pawn storming pawn is therefore not recommended.
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-09T14:24:35.973Z
Comments.Text: The chess board is messed up for me. Most of the moves make a piece dissapear with no moving animation, and when i skip to the end and back to the beginning there are 7 black bishops...?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Aric
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-09T14:58:28.563Z
Comments.Text: I agree with @StudentT. White's king is safe and his weakness are the a and c pawns. I'll focus on getting rooks out and attack those pawns. Trading pieces is ok for me as long as I avoid opposite color bishop ending.
Comments.UserDisplayName: jf328
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-08-09T18:23:14.620Z
Comments.Text: You need to tag your board with what _move_ from the listed sequence it is (it looks offhand like the given position is after Black's 18...Qc3 since the queens come off right after) or it'll mess up the replay functionality.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Steven Stadnicki
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-03-07T20:47:25.340Z
Comments.Text: Here's a working analysis board: https://lichess.org/study/PBByf9Wn (use the slider by the engine name to enable analysis).
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kilo
Tags: <strategy><pawns><castling>
Title: How should I have decided which side to attack on?
ThreadText: # How should I have decided which side to attack on?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-08-09)
  
  I played black and was a pawn up. My plan was to castle on the opposite side from white's king, then use my majority on that side to pawn storm him. So on the turn shown below, I was about to castle long.
  After we drew, I analysed the game with an engine, which preferred castling short and pushing the a-pawn, so it seems I should have done the exact opposite of my plan.
  My question is, how should I have decided on which side to attack in this position? Why was my choice wrong?
  Thanks in advance.
  [FEN "r3k2r/1bp2ppp/pp2p3/8/8/2qPBP1P/P1P1Q1P1/R4RK1 b kq - 1 16"]
  
  1. e4 e6
  2. e5 d5
  3. exd6 Bxd6
  4. Nf3 Nf6
  5. Bd3 b6
  6. Bb5+ Nbd7
  7. Nc3 Bb7
  8. d3 a6
  9. Bxd7+ Qxd7
  10. O-O Ng4
  11. h3 Ne5
  12. Nxe5 Bxe5
  13. Qe2 Qc6
  14. f3 Bxc3
  15. bxc3 Qxc3
  16. Be3 O-O-O
  17. Bd2 Qb4
  18. Be3 Qc3
  19. Qd2 Qxd2
  20. Bxd2 Bc6
  21. Bc3 f6
  22. Rad1 Ba4
  23. Rd2 e5
  24. Rc1 g5
  25. d4 exd4
  26. Rxd4 Rxd4
  27. Bxd4 Rf8
  28. c3 c5
  29. Bf2 Re8
  30. Re1 Kc7
  31. Bg3+ Kb7
  32. Rxe8 Bxe8
  33. Bd6 f5
  34. g4 fxg4
  35. hxg4 h5
  36. Be7 hxg4
  37. fxg4 Bd7
  38. Bxg5 Bxg4
  39. Kf2 Kc6
  40. Ke1 Be6
  41. a3 Kb5
  42. Bd8 Ka5
  43. Kd2 Ka4
  44. Bxb6 c4
  45. Bc5
  
  **Tags:** strategy, pawns, castling
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Well, you'll need many many moves to reach the white king. By then, Black would have more than sufficient time to counter your attacks.  
  > **username_1**: Furthermore, wing attack is usually recommended only when you have the advantage there. In your position, you have no advantage in the kingside. Your kingside pawn storming pawn is therefore not recommended.  
  > **username_2**: The chess board is messed up for me. Most of the moves make a piece dissapear with no moving animation, and when i skip to the end and back to the beginning there are 7 black bishops...?  
  > **username_3**: I agree with @StudentT. White's king is safe and his weakness are the a and c pawns. I'll focus on getting rooks out and attack those pawns. Trading pieces is ok for me as long as I avoid opposite color bishop ending.  
  > **username_4**: You need to tag your board with what _move_ from the listed sequence it is (it looks offhand like the given position is after Black's 18...Qc3 since the queens come off right after) or it'll mess up the replay functionality.  
  > **username_5**: Here's a working analysis board: https://lichess.org/study/PBByf9Wn (use the slider by the engine name to enable analysis).  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2016-08-10. Score: 6 | Accepted answer
  
  You should castle "short" (on the king side). because you want to attack on the queen side without exposing your king.
  
  1) White is short a pawn because of his missing b pawn. If you castle "long" and put your king on that side, White's open b file (and the black diagonal to b6) become compensation. If you don't, he's just a pawn down.
  
  2) Your queen is powerfully placed on the queen side. You want to move up your pawns to support your queen, without exposing your king, or allowing your queen to be "pinned" by a rook. White has his queen on the king side and you don't, so it doesn't make sense to attack there.
  
  3) Your best chances of getting an "outside" passed pawn are on the a and b files, so you want to advance those pawns, with your c pawn in support.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2017-05-20. Score: 1
  
  The question "on which side to attack?" is already flawed. In many positions, a direct attack isn't appropriate. For an attack to have good chances of success, you need some sort of advantage, such as a lead in development or extra space on one side of the board. You don't really have any advantages that would help you launch an attack on the kingside - arguably your bishop pointing that way, but it's not much. Your real advantage in this position is your extra pawn, which can eventually help you make a passed pawn in an endgame. Castling on opposite sides and going for a pawn storm is an extremely high risk strategy that doesn't have any positional factors supporting it, and doesn't exploit your advantage, the extra pawn. A good starting point in this position is getting your king to safety and getting the rooks in the game.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2016-08-09. Score: 0
  
  I look at this position and think:
  
  1: you castle short because of the open b-file.
  2: you play Rad8 and e5 to limit his bishop.
  3: followed by things like f6 and Bd5 to reposition the black light-squared bishop.
  
  Seems like a reasonable plan to me. I would not castle long in this position. Gives white to many attacking options.
  Not all positions call for direct attacks on the king position. this looks like one of them to me at first glance.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2020-01-23. Score: 0
  
  Bad question.
  You have no attack, especially on the king.
  
  Castle 0-0 and get on with the game positionally.
  There is not enough material to do any attacking especially the king.
  
  Castle long and White will have the attacking chances such as they are.
  
  You are a pawn up but with bishops of opposite colors. This will be hard to win no matter what you do.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-08-09. Score: -1
  
  I had a similar (but not the same) question [here](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/15006/is-opposite-side-castling-an-advantage).
  
  Castling queenside would allow your four pawns and both rooks to push the opposing king, with support from the light square bishop. This would allow you to pose a big threat on the king, protected only by two pawns and a bishop facing four pawns, two rooks, and possibly a bishop. The white rooks and queen would be somewhat blocked from joining the action due to the white pawn structure, reducing white's chances of defending their king.
  
  Castling kingside would allow you to push all of your pieces on the flank. Your queen is already there, and the three pawns, bishop, and rook could quickly launch an attack from the B and C files. The isolated pawn on A2 can possibly be taken, leaving white with 2 pawns against 3 on the queenside. Support from your major pieces and the bishop would create a solid attack, and trading would be an even greater disadvantage for white after A2 is taken.
  
  Either way, it is technically possible to overcome white. It is unlikely that a human would be able to forsee the outcomes which the computer sees, and I cannot give an exact reason for why it would prefer short castling.
  
  My suggestion is that perhaps it would be better to castle kingside, because then you would have all of your pieces coordinated in one attack. Queenside castling would leave the bishop and queen slightly excluded due to white's pawn structure, reducing their effectiveness in a pawn attack on the white king.
  
  
  ---
  
  