Altho even in the lines with b3 personally I prefer to move the Bishop back to b7 before giving the check, so that I can play a5, if white play Bd2.

(1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb7 6.Bg2 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 a5)

With the Queen on d1 you can delay the capture on d5 7.d5 exd5 and play 8.Ng1/Nh4 first (too lazy to check which move is better). Now the d5 pawn is pinned. White will recapture on d5 next. White will at some point push e4 to further strengthen his grip on the centre and those positions are just horrible for black. Again the core idea for Black in the QID is to establish some sorta control over the light squares (very Nimzovich like). Fair to say this has not happened here.

Think the first is 4...Ba6 offers white 5. b3 then... Bb4+ and white Bd2 is pretty sedate. But 5. Qc2 is the known challenge with ...c5 fully accepting the sharp lines.

After 5. Qc2, black kind of have to do something to challenge the potential monster B on g2. The compensation for the tempo loss appears the pawn up if white pushes d5.

Don't know the latest theory on all this but probably computer says black objectively OK. But practically looks very difficult for black.

Seems a move behind with often hanging Bb7 and compromised center. Result that he often seems scrambling to hold it together.

Really noticed potential problems for black at 2008 Tal Memorial. Where Karpov had two tough losses and even Carlsen lost to Ivanchuk in similar QID Qc2...c5 type play.

The whole variation with 12. ... d6 for Black seems to be suspect. The choice to play like this is somewhat bizarre since Carlsen played against this variation and won in Carlsen vs Pelletier, 2008.

In trying to understand the pun, I see its a 2013 film title about a guy who was kidnapped in 1841 and forced to work on a plantation in the South for 12 years.

That is being compared to Giri not winning a classical game against Carlsen for 12 years, the last one back Tata 2011.

I'm happy I have gotten rid of toxic masculinization (and many other conditioned patterns) in seven hard years of therapy and now I'm just <myself>, keeping well away from people showing the slightest sign of @#$%*&!# machoism. Yes, unfortunately that means I haven't got many friends, but it's the only way to keep my mental hygiene, and I value that above everything else.

With the Queen on d1, 7 d5 exd5 8 Ng1/Nh4 looks awfully passive for White. It is down a pawn and has just one well developed piece - the g7 Bishop. I especially dislike the two White Knights - now it is White who seems to offer Black a two move advantage.

Does look like 12...g6 puts up a better defense. But it does seem a defense which allows whites queen to roam, looks positionally suspect, and is still unsure.

Think Magnus idea is to exchange off the queen and then attempt some sort of counterplay in an attempt toward trying to equalize. Hard to believe he didn't think he was worse at 12. e4.

But also think he also had slim hopes of potential of he could stabilize and with counter play chances. Didn't see the whole broadcast but thought I heard Svidler pretty optimistic for Black sometime shortly after 12...d6. Though with very light analysis. Doubt Magnus was that optimistic.

Main reason might just be that Carlsen's instinct is to go for counter play rather than an unclear mainly defensive, mostly passive defense. Where guys like Karjakin or Leko might lean 12...g6 easily.

So a more general question would be: why would Carlsen play the QID in the first place, if he knows that in either mainline (... Bb7 and ... Ba6) he will have to play against d4-d5 pawn sacs that leave black passively defending?

I agree 100%. Chances of him losing with KID or even Benko/ Benoni probably much less than this QID line. So why?

Maybe he figured chances are Giri would go b3...Bb4+ Bd2 main play. As more Giri's "way" or because he'd suspect Magnus trick.

I think that 12...d6 may have been too slow, and 12 ... 0-0 may have been better to give up the pawn.