White on the other hand was a bit overly cautious with 21.Bc1 instead of 21.e6 to push on. Here black put the wrong knight on b6, 21...N5b6 allows Qd5 and N on d7 keeps c5 covered.

You point out the obvious that is not in question, yes Carlsen wanted to preserve his bishop and it turned out to function nicely later on. The move was primarily defensive and unnecessary that way. In chess there is such as thing as initiative, and 21.e6 keeps the initiative whereas 21.Bc1 does not, simple as that.

There is no need to state your credentials, I was not trying to insult you by mentioning Rybka. I did not know what you based your analysis on and usually people criticise GMs with reams of ply 15 analysis. It was btw also not necessary to say that Magnus is 'even better' than you.

In chess there is initiative yes. Also there is debate about how to best use the initiative to better your position/game. In other words there are plans, ideas and ways forward and opinions about which is best. Check Carlsen's discussion of the game at the Bazna site. His plan was to play h4 and attack that way. He did not like e6 as much with the remark that 'it is important here not to rush' or words to that effect and a few lines as to why he did not like it. You disagree with him and say he loses the initiative and e6 is better. That is fine and it is your right to have a different opinion. You, however, are a master in chess (for decades, apparently) and he is the highest rated GM in the world. Because of that just saying you are right will not get you anywhere.

Whatever, I am not interested in "getting anywhere" by kibitzing on this site. I enjoy analyzing games and do so all the time, recently deciding to post some to help others and interact.

Carlsen's decision does not need explanation, his credentials speak for him. It's a matter of style, where caution and pace particularly against players like Naka is very prudent.

With the 'getting anywhere' I meant 'does not support your argument in any way' as in 'Just saying that you are right does not ....'.

I also notice that you cannot analyze ANY game without needing an engine.

Of course, playing through your games, I notice that you don't really play that well. You are poor in positional or strategical play and your endgame needs work. This is mainly a result of you playing mostly against class players and rarely against masters. You want to improve your game, <AJ>, you gonna have to play the big boys on a regular basis.

... ... ...

I tell folks all the time, just because the machine does not like a move means that its really bad. The trick is to avoid those moves like 18...Nd5? (??) in this game.

I call moves that actually lose material or overlook key tactics, "GAME-BREAKERS."