frogbert: <28.Kg1!! what a move - 20 moves later it turns to be the winner>
get real, please :o)
in the diagram position, black is practically winning after 28... re7! so there's nothing fantastic about 28. kg1 at all. if anything, it's objectively a weak move.
carlsen lost this game due spending too much time early on in the (rapid) game - that was his biggest mistake.
also, the position after 44. d6 appears to be a draw after the cool 44... qxb3! instead it followed
45. qe7+ kg6
45. qe6+? (allows kg5 with a draw)
45... kg7? (and white wins again)
but being down to no time and 10 secs increment is pretty hopeless in tricky queen end games (with a knight too, in the beginning), so when carlsen failed to exploit his better position as black, he stepped wrong in time pressure.
<<some things still doesn't change. Like, Kamsky beating Carlsen.>
It's only 6-4. Not that bad when you consider Carlsen's age. >
that 2 win difference stems from the rapid play-off for 9th place in the 2005 wcc, played a couple of days after carlsen turned 15, at a time carlsen was rated 2570. carlsen lost the rapid play-off 2-0, and hence the 2nd loss came in a so-called must-win situation - and carlsen went all in and lost. :o)
in classical chess, they've played 6 games, and the score is +2 -1 =3 in kamsky's favour, despite two more white games for carlsen. kamsky's latest win in a classical game, was in the wcc semi-final in november 2007, when both were rated 2714.
if one relies on kamsky beating carlsen as one of the few constant, non-changing and sanity-saving factors in the universe, one might be headed for a rough ride. :o)
[ps - the blindfold game carlsen-kamsky played a couple of hours before this game ended 1-0 iirc ...]