The combustion chambers on saws, like most other things about them, compromise some performance just for packaging. In an ideal world. Just look at bikes for an example...performances is the priority on most 2 stroke performance bikes. Compared to saws, they have shorter, but wider combustion chambers. The squish bands have less surface area in relation to the bore diameter than most saws. A wider(as in width, not depth) squish band should better combat detonation...in reality, I think the saws could run much narrower squish bands and be just fine.
Also performance builds have spark plug holes that are perfectly centered in the combustion chamber. The overall shape depends on the manufacturer. I've seen some of the newer 2 strokes with angled, rather than rounded, combustion chambers. Below is an example of a bike head...this is the head off my 300 that I milled to decrease the squish thickness, then removed material out of the dome to correct for compression. It has a rounded/ovaled shape compared to the angled heads on some bikes.
A note about bikes vs saws and how that relates to compression...compression is much more important on a non-piped saw motor. In a motor with a pipe, the pulse wave effectively negates potential loss of compression from a high exhaust port. In our saws, IMO a taller exhaust port needs a lower volume combustion chamber to negate this...this is all within reason. When it comes to saws, I'm a big proponent of increasing compression. On the bikes, they already come with so much compression, that I prefer to leave the head volume the same but correcting the squish band.
Disclaimer: I wouldn't call myself a pro or expert when it comes to 2 stroke tuning theory, I'm more of an educated idiot.