King's Indian Defense: Push king or queen side pawns?

I had always assumed that as black in the KID I would push the queen side pawns to gain advantage and keep my King in his fortress after I castle. This is also the idea in the chess.com youtube video on the KID. But I also watched a video by St. Louis Chess club where they show multiple games showing how black wants to push their king's side pawns while white plays up the queen side. I assume you can play either way, but is there a more properly accepted way of pushing the attack with the KID? After watching some games it appears pushing on the king's side is much more aggressive (and thus in my mind enjoyable), but it obviously leaves you open to a host of counter plays by white. Any advice is welcome, thanks!

Hmm. Are you sure that was a video on the KID and not the pirc or something? Sometimes people get those confused. Or maybe it was a particular position where pushing the queenside pawns were good, and it just happened to be a KID opening

I don't imagine it was a video specifically on the KID itself, because pushing on the queenside is not thematic.

There are many different variations in the KID.

In what I think of as the super classical lines, yes, white pushes on the queenside and black attacks on the kingside. There are a lot of fun and wild sacrificial kingside attacks by black that come out of that opening.

But this is a difficult opening to play, because there are many other options for white, and black will have to be comfortable playing many different types of positions. You won't always get an attack like this.

Sorry it wasn't chess.com, it was thechesswebsite. And yes it was KID, I've provided the link here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtGLHip7yk4&t=242s&ab_channel=thechesswebsite

It appears that the maker of the video doesn't fully understand the KID, and is told so in the comment section.

Lol, by that same analysis I shouldn't be playing chess. But thanks anyways!

Forgot to say thank you for your response and clearing it up.

Yeah in the Averbakh, which I know very little about because I don't play 1.d4 and as black I don't play the KID, black doesn't get that classical kingside attack. In fact sometimes white is the one with the big kingside attack, and like he said black tries to do something on the queenside or center. (I was recently chatting with a guy who plays it, so I do know a little).

Having said that, I really don't like the explanations he gives. A lot of them are superficial. He says of the averbakh variation "this is a player who likes to bring his bishops out early" which is a completely meaningless thing to say. Then he shows an old main line (black plays c5 and Na6 without h6) which maybe is ok, I don't play the KID so I don't know all the options, but looking at the options I don't know why he chooses to show that one, especially if his video is aimed at beginner type players because it leads to benoni style structure and play which is very difficult. Ok maybe it's not for beginners, but he doesn't even mention the benoni, he doesn't even put the variation on the board long enough so we can see the typical structure change.

So while he is saying some correct ideas, I feel like this player is copying moves out of a book or old game and giving the one correct idea from the book to his viewers, but for all the other moves and comments he's just trying to make up explanations.

Why not both?

By the way this guy does very nice introductions to openings

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa2Ezoefyh5Gm9gXwg0kCdA

I shall take a look, thanks!

I agree, Dereque Kelley does a good job of describing the openings for novices. He is clear, and he is good at pointing out the basic ideas of the opening. (This is based only one the one video mentioned here.)