hi. what is the dark square strategy? do u try to play on dark squares? can you explain in details and give games if possible. thanks a lot.

First of all, are you kurogkug ? if not, good ! and secondly never, never  ask this question especially the word 'strategy' to BorgQueen ! you got it ?! if you wanna know why ? Read this 'here'  and enjoy.

To answer your question, one come to mind is when if you have a dark sq bishop try and get your pawns off the dark sq so your bishop can move around.

paging borgqueen

 LOL "trend quietly* if I was you

Tread. Tread quietly.

I heard my name called... sup?

...

Oh dear God!! 

I think this involves playing checkers on the dark squares!

The book Best Lessons of a Chess Coach explains this very well!

Basically, one example that comes to mind is that when most of your opponent's pawns are on light sqaures, it usally leave a litter of dark squares unprotected. Therefore, one game plan for you might be to trade off your opponent's dark squared bishop.

Bronstein talks about playing on the dark squares in his comments to the first game of his "Zurich 1953" book (an absolute classic; all 210 games annotated instructively).

Luckily, you can look inside the book at Amazon, and see the entire first game there: http://www.amazon.com/Zurich-International-Chess-Tournament-1953/dp/0486238008/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256804275&sr=8-1

Good answer!  Every single pawn move creates weaknesses, because they can never return to cover the squares they were protecting before they advanced.

Because of the natural tendency to pawns to be used to protect other pawns, often the weak squares in a position will tend to be of one color or the other.  In a "dark square strategy," a player will attempt to exploit these weaknesses by landing pieces on those weakened dark squares, especially where no other pawn can ever attack them. 

In implementing this strategy, as ogerboy notes, you usually want to trade off your Bishop on the weak color complex for his, since it is the only piece he has which naturally and economically can cover those weak squares.  Once it is gone, the weak squares become as giant, gaping holes, yearning to be filled with invading pieces.

So?  Why not light squares?  I think it's silly

If I recall correctly, they are properly called color-complexes. There's probably another good term for it.

Common sense? 

done by Dr_Doc_MD ?

I've not heard the phrase 'dark square strategy'.  With regards to tactics using colours of squares it's something I might try to employ if my opponent has a single bishop, light or dark, I'll try to get as many of my pieces onto the opposite coloured squares as I can.  On the one hand it might give my opponent room to move his bishop but if the tactic works he can't actually threaten any piece so effectively gets cut out of the game.  I tend to look at tactics like that if I'm a piece down. 

anyone please answer this question seriously..

Why don't you then?  I don't think there can be a serious answer personally, but post 8 seems like a decent answer.

Post 7 seemed good to me.

A lot of people when they see a weak colour complex (e.g. dark squares) want to keep their dark squared bishop to exploit it and avoid its exchange for its opposite number - whereas, as has been mentioned in this thread, the best policy is to exchange off the bishop that defends the weak squares.

I remember many moons ago keeping my dark squared bishop because I wanted to take advantage of the dark squared coloured complex, whereas now of course I'd chop off the opponent's in a heartbeat.