<Cali> I agree your line as given is advantageous White. Perhaps 31.Nh4 <Qc2!?> is better than 31...Qe6 as it takes some of the sting out of 32.f4.

<Drukenknight> from the stem variation above continuing: 31.a4 Nb2

32.Rb1 Nxa4 33.Rxb5 Rc8 34.Nh4 Qe6 35.f4 <Qd7>

I would propose to continue in your line with:

<36.Rbb1> (to reunite the R's and challenge on the e-file) c4 37.Red1 Qa7+ 38.Kh2 c3 39.Rbc1 Rec7 40.f5 Rc6 41.fxg6 fxg6 42.Nxg6 which is better for White.

29….Bd6
30. e7 Bxe7
31. Qg3 Ra6
32. Ng5

But why not continue with
32...h4
33. Qc3+ Bf6
34. Qf3 Bxg5
35. Qb7+ Kh6
36. Qxb5 Qd4
37. Bxg5+ Kxg5
38. Red1 Rb6
39. Rxd4 Rxb5
40. Rxc4 gxf5
41. a4 Ra5
42. f4+

29…...Bd6 30.e7 Bxe7 31.Qg3 Ra6 32.Ng5 h4!

Bobby says that 29...pxB loses after:

29….gxf5
30. Qg3+ Kh7
31. Ng5+ Bxg5
32. Bxg5 Qd3
33 Qc7+ Kg6
34 Qf7+! Kxg5
35 Qg7+ Kf4
36 Rad1 [transposing from english notation, not proofed]

But what about:

29...Bd6 30 e7 Bxe7 31 Bxg6!

Move 26 seems that there are ways to improve on blacks play, but it also seems that we have chosen a moment in the game where many many lines appear to start losing. Is it possible that neither player is in complete grasp of the possibilities, but that Fischer has outplayed him so far?

Move 29, there are still some probably better defensive resources and there are some shocking sacrifices for white. Interesting though, Fischer always maintained that he did not sacrifice intuitively and only if he could work it out totally (the one exception I can recall is that game vs Donner in 1962, Varna? I guess where the N sack just turns ugly.)

In King-side VS queen-side play, the advantage almost always goes to the player attacking the King-side.

Take the position after 25..nc4 for example. The merits of positional play in this paticualr part of the game are incredible. Analyzing it, I see a few things:

1)The Bishop pair Fischer has attained allows him to simultaneously attack the king-side while defend and choke Black's knights on the King-side! Now while this may seem elementary, I feel that in the sub-2200 level, positional play is highly under-rated, and this shows how important positional play is.

2)Black's plan is clear, continue to play on the queen side with his powerfully placed and well defended knights. However, the ultimate quesiton was if his counterplay on the queen side would be able to put up resistance to White's King-side attacks? Answer: Often no. This is for the simple reason:
>>In chess, the question on king position and safety always comes first, if the king is in danger, nothing else matters. Therefore, looking generally and specefically at this position, in queenside counter play, the King is generally safe and the player attacking the King-side can risk more in terms of position then the player attacking the Queen-side can. Therefore, it is my assumption the King-side attacker can take more risks! IE-26..Kg7

3)after 25..nc4, Black had little or no more progress on the queen-side! Directly backing up point #2. It seems to me that in chess theory, one should always play for King-side attacks, or atleast prevent the opponet for doing so.

In a conclusion (Now I'm a professor :-) )
I can say that Queen side attacks should not in themselves be seen as long-term investments, as such the king-side would be. Short term attacks to attack major pieces such as the queen or rooks seem plausible, unless of course these pieces are on the King side, in which case Good luck to you :-(

In general the player with the King-side attack would <most likely> have the advantage in the game, but I'll try to scope out a few games where this is no the case. However, I think for the majority my statement is true.