attacks on a fiachettoed position

I see this type of plan alot where the opponent exchanges the fianchettoed bishop then lunches an attack on the king.

I've lost many games where my opponent did this, because I don't know how to defend against this type of plan, or what type of strategy is to be used to defend against this.

instructions are all welcome

Can you post some of them?

I'm interested too and also dealing with that pesky h-pawn and his buddies coming down to mess up the pretty pawn formation.

My only thought is to attack his Queen side as fast as possible. He will probably have brought out his Queen to support the bishop and so tempted to castle on that side..the side my pieces are pointing. This might be especially true if I messed up the pawn structure on his king side by exchanging.

Yeah, in general it would be illogical to do the h-pawn push if you want to castle on that side.

I think I'll track this discussion. I'm interested in the general case motiffs presented by the KID.

Consider meeting h4 with h5 (or vice versa).  Consider keeping your g and h pawns abreast to retain the option of locking pawns (I'll give a diagram below).  Consider playing Re8/Re1 to retain the option of preserving your bishop.  Consider keeping the center fluid/maintaining tension or opening it to balance play in the center with your opponent's attack.  Another rule of thumb, be aware of your opponent being able to bring more attacking pieces than you have defenders.  Lastly, you may consider playing f4/f5 as your own king side action to preempt an h pawn push (many times these moves don't mix well i.e. meeting f5 with h4 and vice versa)

Although it really does depend on the specific position, some of these may be fatal and fail right away or the only way to defend depending.

Keeping pawns abreast is an easy way to keep the option of meeing an advance by locking the structure.

Orangehonda...thanks for taking the time to share those thoughts. They are helpful. Good job on the diagram too.

When the bishop is supported by the queen, the best way I've found to defend it is to move the rook over, so that the bishop has a hiding square.

Sometimes though, there is no threat of attack, so don't make it a knee jerk reaction to move the rook over.

In a recent tournament game, I was feeling cheeky and instead of playing best moves was trying to have a bit more fun (or something)... here I played Qd7 just to "scare" white's rook over (I had a feeling this guy would play Re1) to take some sting out of his f pawn push (which it did, he eventually had to move back over to f1).  And only then did I play the correct move c5 (to stop d4).

I had no intention of trading off this good bishop, and would never have played Bh3 to begin with.  My opponent should have played 10.d4

Heh, good point, the pawn storm is coming after dxe... I just threw that position together as an example, didn't actually take the time to look at it

[edit] Wait, is that really possible?  If Qxd6 then f3 is  hanging and if f4 then g4 is hanging...

Although I'd admit after h5 g5 white has a lot to play for, and black will probably have to suffer a long defensive type game.

Really? That surprises me. So you'll often push the h-pawn and castle on the K-Side? (Sorry for the generalization, I think it's good to make them sometimes). 

This is the best advice   In my defense though, I like to throw out general things because I still remember as a beginner everything was too overwhelming, and there were no rules of thumb... it seemed like "anything could happen" and a lot of analysis of specific positions seemed to be pulled out of thin air...

Like one game would show c4 as being poor as it weakens d3.  In the next game c4 was strong as it reinforced d5... in one game h3 was smart, to reinforce d4 or as general restriction on the black's queen bishop.  In the next it was a foolish weakening move only a patzer would play.

Heh, in one game exd was smart because it opened the center... in the next exd was dumb because it opened the center.  I used to joke to myself that I could make any move sound good or bad by parroting these things I'd read.  I simply didn't have enough experience yet to differentiate between the positions and so it was frustrating.  Until then, I always wanted some general thing I could use while gaining the necessary experience.

You'd be surprised... if you have space and a preponderance of material ready on the kingside, even if you begin attacking and opening lines that's often the safest area of the board for your king to be on!

One reason for this is if you have the kingside, often your opponent will have play (and space) on the queenside or center, and you really do want your king on the kingside even though it looks crazy with no pawn cover, way out in the open .  You'll see this in GM games sometimes.

I know. I've got reasonable experience with those type of games as I play the Torre Attack and Dutch Stonewall where that happens often. But surely in most situations it would be too risky? 

Anyway, of course it all depends purely on the position.

OK, I should have put "as tonydal has already said". I just wanted to make it clear that I understood the whole discussion is not that useful.

   Castling behind advanced pawns is unsafe because of the many open lines. If you castle kingside, do not advance pawns because trading pawns in front of a castled king is dangerous  unless the center is locked with pawns.

   If the center is locked, go for it, advance pawns and defeat the castled king with your kingside pawns in front of your castled king. you wont have to worry about open lines against your king because of the locked center which closes most open lines if not all open lines that can be used to attack your king castled on the same wing. 

I can see situations where keeping your g-pawn and h-pawn abreast would be a good idea. I can see situations where opening the file or moving the rook over might be a good idea. Of course, the possibilties depend on the position of other pieces.

I think the phrase "you might want to consider" was a good choice of words. I don't even think they were suggested as rules of thumb.

Even though I may have worded poorly for my intended meaning -- I only meant two of those to be rules of thumb.  The meeting flank action with center action and observing that your opponent has attacking chances due to insufficient defenders.

And yeah, I disagree somewhat with AnthonyCG, I like listing A, B, C, and D to kind of give an idea of what to expect or as a foundation to build on.  Although it's true, saying the phrase "it depends" surely helps less.

It murdered you, it'll murder me.

it shouldn't be that much of a problem but if it is blame the bad development of your pieces or show us an example but you gotta step up and adapt and keep in my your king more