Which strategy suites best ???

If we divide all strategies in 2 category according to the activation af materials then we get , 1)  go forward with maximum pawns to cover max. board as well to provide less room for oponent. And 2) Go ahead with knights,bishops and queen to get attacking power ( by make judicious no. of pawns to a single step ahead to prevent the king's place ).

Which is better ? how can we tackle our oponent having one of above strategies ??? 

There is no easy generalization of what strategy is "best".    

Space advantages (what I gather you meant from #1) and Mobility (from your #2) are both crucial but you can't play this game on auto-pilot ... everything depends on the position and what's in front of you at a given time.

 You can't really unscrew a screw with a hammer nor can you cut a piece of wood with a pair of scissors.  You can try ... but that's not too efficient now, is it?

Strategy is not just knowing what ideas to use but  WHEN. 

If you really must  generalize the ocean that is "chess strategy", then how about this =>

1- Do useful things on your move.

2- Be aware of what your opponent is doing after he makes his move.

3- Try to stop your opponent from doing useful things.

@ Shivsky , Its a good information but I am talking from the first step... There are so many strategies for opening and for the next to it also, But which category suites best?? an opening which lies in #1 category or an opening which lies in #2 ???? 

In short to trap your oponent is more useful or to attack????

An answer which I get from other related posts is... " Its depends on the nature of player..." 

But suppose both the players are equally rated as well experienced.. So which one is best to beat who is similar to you in chess, by putting a nature aside !..

I'm afraid you're not reading my post clearly. The nature of the player has NOTHING to do with it. You play based on the position. There is no "one size shoe that fits everything" even in the opening or the middlegame.  

Your two stated ideas are valid .. I'm not disputing them ... I'm only disagreeing with your position that it is either #1 or #2.

Going back to my toolbox analogy,  it is like a carpenter who carries a screwdriver and a hammer (and nothing else) and expects to do his job with nothing else.

In the opening => You can follow good guidelines or better yet, KNOW the theory/ideas behind the lines you are playing.  Figure out what those guidelines are ... know where the pieces belong. There is no simple answer to this.

Similarly, in the middlegame, You play according to imbalances in the position that you and your opponent create together. People have written tons of instructive books on this and I suggest you go read them.

There are not just #1 or #2 categories. There are HUNDREDS! You accumulate a lot of ideas and use the right ones at the right time (i.e. when the Position warrants it). Go forth and read a good book on strategy (Silman's Amateur's Mind, Michael Stean's Simple Chess).

Or even better, follow annotated master games (Chernev etc.) and see how the great players do it.  They CERTAINLY do not play as if they have just a #1 or #2 "category" plan to play a game with.  

If this still does not make sense to you, perhaps very refreshing understanding of game theory as applies to chess will take you to the answers you seek.

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/theory-steinitz

1. At the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium.
2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game.
3. Therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error made by the opponent. (There is no such thing as a winning move.)
4. As long as the equilibrium is maintained, an attack, however skilful, cannot succeed against correct defence. Such a defence will eventually necessitate the withdrawal and regrouping of the attacking pieces and te attacker will then inevitably suffer disadvantage.
5. Therefore a player should not attack until he already has an advantage, caused by the opponent's error, that justifies the decision to attack.
6. At the beginning of the game a player should not at once seek to attack. Instead, a player should seek to disturb the equilibrium in his favour by inducing the opponent to make an error - a preliminary before attacking.
7. When a sufficient advantage has been obtained, a player must attack or the advantage will be dissipated."

Getting back to the original question. I would vote for strategy two. Here's my reasoning.

Is a piece more powerful if it has a lot of squares to move to or fewer? Generally a lot.

Is a piece more powerful if it is can move onto squares on both sides of the board, or just its own side of the board? Generally on both sides.

So developing your queens, knights and bishops off the back rank makes them more powerful.

If you try to prevent the opponent from developing his own forces, by pushing pawns to take away the squares where his pieces would like to go, you neglect your own development and your own pieces stay weak. You are trying to do too much. If the pawn shield breaks down you are in big trouble.

In general masters play to develop their own forces. They limit their ambition to restricting the development of just one enemy piece. So, for example, they play h3 to prevent a Black bishop coming to g4 in the Ruy Lopez. 

>>... they play h3 to prevent a Black bishop coming to g4 in the Ruy Lopez. <<

Moving either rook pawn is one of my uppermost thoughts after the first few moves. Prevents the Ruy...which is pesky. Prevents the opposing knight from sneaking in, too. Unless, maybe, planning a fianchetto.

@ Shivsky , Thanks for your valuable information. As I mentioned before ; I know there is a 100's of strategies but all can be devided by opening with pawns or any other material after the 1st step. & now main question arise that which sould be preferable , go on with pawns or to get activate others ???? This is what my question is... 

If 1) then we can go for any of strategies like gambits, center counter etc...

If 2) then fianchetto, make a fork, .......

There are lots of strategies... & it can be decide as per the situation, but question is about catageries... 

In short , a hammer or a drilling machine ????

I hope you don't mind a comment from me.

I wouldn't look at it as an "either/or"...pawns or knights/bishops. You really want to integrate all of these as part of a strategy.

Nothing wrong with bringing the pawns out first. Or the knights first. Of course, you can't get the bishops out until the pawns are out of the way.

The fundamental view is...take control of the center, develop your knights and bishops...don't bring the queen out prematurely...maybe castle to protect the king and bring a rook into play.

These are just basic concepts. You don't bring a zigzag of pawns out to form a phlanx. This is what someone does as a beginner. Nor do you chase all over the board with the knight and bishop without setting up some pawn positions. Strategic planning...co-ordination of pieces...defend the king as well as attack...control the center...

Read a book on chess..."Chess for Dummies" is what I would consider...or stuff at this site.

These are just general, basic thoughts. I have no doubt that someone will contradict what I said about how they have done otherwise...maybe gotten a quick fool's mate, etc. What I am saying is, that if you want to learn to play the piano, you need to learn the scales with doh...ray...me...

You queried; I opined. Maybe I helped. If not, OK, too. Good luck.

@ChessStrategist Thanks for your reply sir... That is same what I want...I get the same answer from my recent gemes as well...

You are welcome. Good luck.

I just posted a blog on surviving the opening as white without studying the openings.  I think you'll find it helpful with your opening strategy.

http://blog.chess.com/CaptGeorge/surviving-the-opening-as-white

I agree with ChessStrategist's second comment.

However you just can't go against what type of player you're (attacker or tactical defensive player). I am an attacker first and I played against many players who just wait for my mistake. I loose most of my games because I need just one move to finish game which I can't get for whatever reason.

This you're either or applies for all players even GMs. Anatoly Karpov was known as tactical player waiting for any mistake. He had army of assistants even private psychologist and even they were unable to transform him to be an attacker. Viktor Korchnoi was an attacker. So this applies even to the real top players. You just can't go against your nature and basic insticts I guess.

So you just have to play what you're most comfortable with.

Theory is good and necessary but it in real game play it just won't change you to be type of the player you'are not.

Well, you know, I was just giving a few very basic thoughts. It wasn't my intent to say that some people aren't more aggressive or more defensive or that either is necessarily better as a style of play.

I would say, though, that it would be foolhardy to neglect either one over the other.

You did say that you lose most of your games. Maybe what I've just said is something to think about.

And...I sure know the feeling: "Rats! If I could only have two moves instead of just one!!!" This is of our own doing.

Well it was meant most of the games that I loose and I win almost equally as loose if I play my ratings 1300-1500. Problem is in order to improve you just have to play with higher rating players and it that case you know you will always loose more than you win but that is the only way to improve your game except to study it which I do no have time for really.

It is easy for me to play 1200-1350 ratings - I play now only 1400-1500 which I think belong (realistically lower 1400-1450). I can see that everything above 1500 is just so much harder. Another league starts at 1500+.