What you notice in playing over the Petrosian vs. Fischer game is, how Petrosian refrained from a lot of exchanges. Petrosian was like a boa constrictor in this game, and didn't give Fischer room to breathe. His play is so unhurried, and yet all of a sudden, he has a total bind on the queenside, Fischer's c8 bishop is useless, and there is nopossibility of black freeing himself.

Saidy wasn't like this. In his game, he seems in a rush to always be 'doing' something. There are too many exchanges, he allows counterplay, and the negative aspects of his bad bishop that Fischer took pains to create earlier become apparent.

Also, when the center is blocked, by which I mean no open files to pile up on an exposed king or other obvious target, then developing moves can be sacrificed for space gaining moves. Also developing tempos can be sacrificed if they inhibit the opponent's development...In John Emms book on the Scotch, he describes Kasparov's bold new moves that revitalized the Scotch game, an open game, putting white's knight on a4 to harrass black's bishop c5, among others...the position dictates the best move in the end...both Fischer games show that the kingside initiative is not enough to compensate for the accelerated Queenside pawnstorm that white achieves. It is interesting, though, that Fischer's KID kingside attacks seemed to work, from a position of even less space, with the central pawn wedge moved one square over to the kingside...questions upon questions...this is why its taken so long to figure this game out!