I understand a successful king side attack often results in Mate or a vulnerable king, but what is the objective of a successful queenside attack?
I understand a successful queenside attack often results in Mate or a vulnerable king. 
When players have castled on opposite sides one king is on the kingside and the other king is on the queenside. Both the kingside attack and the queenside attack are attacks on the opposing king.
Thanks micberu that diagram is helpful
Hey guys,
When kings castle on opposite sides, why is it correct for one color to race to attack the Kingside, while the other color races to attack the Queenside?
I understand a successful king side attack often results in Mate or a vulnerable king, but what is the objective of a successful queenside attack?
What other factors are relevant in the queenside vs kingside decision?
Thanks for your advice!
It seems like you misunderstand what is meant by "kingside." It is not the side with the king on it. The kingside are the e through h files.
When players castle opposite sides, they often race to attack each other's kings as you said. One of the kings is on the kingside, and one is one the queenside. So, as you may have guessed by now, the purpose of the queenside attack in this case is to try for checkmate.
In other openings, like the king's indian defense. Both sides may castle kingside, and white often still attacks the queenside. The goal in that case is usually to win material and eventually queen some pawns.
Hey guys,
When kings castle on opposite sides, why is it correct for one color to race to attack the Kingside, while the other color races to attack the Queenside?
I understand a successful king side attack often results in Mate or a vulnerable king, but what is the objective of a successful queenside attack?
What other factors are relevant in the queenside vs kingside decision?
Thanks for your advice!
Basically, in opposite side castling, it's not all about a caveman pawn storm. Nimzowitsch demonstrated this quite well in "My System".
Another answer to your queenside attack is that you play where the board tells you to. I see so many players higher rated than me who have total disregard for what the board is telling them to do because they just want the premature kingside attack. The opponent panics, even though they're doing well on the queenside, bring their pieces to defence and become too passive and hand over the initiative. I'm like, these guys are whatever rating?
I think NativeChessMinerals hit the nail on the head: the explanation is that xandercage70 misunderstood the definitions of "kingside" and "queenside," which is why his original question didn't make sense.
I think NativeChessMinerals hit the nail on the head: the explanation is that xandercage70 misunderstood the definitions of "kingside" and "queenside," which is why his original question didn't make sense.
No, the question made sense anyway, because there are situations in which you attank the flank where the king isn't present, which is more often the queenside because castling kingside is most common
Hey guys,
When kings castle on opposite sides, why is it correct for one color to race to attack the Kingside, while the other color races to attack the Queenside?
I understand a successful king side attack often results in Mate or a vulnerable king, but what is the objective of a successful queenside attack?
What other factors are relevant in the queenside vs kingside decision?
Thanks for your advice!