Shirov just won the match against Karyakin.
He'll play in the final against Kamsky.

Well perhaps it was a bad choice by Carlsen, he probably should have stuck to his normal repertoire. 
But a commentator pointed out that Kamsky's opening preparation for this tournament seemed much better than in previous tournaments.
In the match against Pomariov with white he offered to go into the poisoned pawn variation of the Najdorf, and it was Pomariov who chickened out.
In the first game against Carlsen, he showed good preparation as well.
In todays game I think he followed a side line, but still managed to sharpen the game. Halfway it seemed all over, when Kamsky won an exchange for which Carlsen had certainly little compensation. 
Carlsen's resistance lasted some 20 moves, but was "futile".

@ostrapbender: 
well this tournament seems a bit disappointing for 
"one of our most frequent posters" who dislikes both Shirov and Kamsky. What do those two have it common? Could it be that
both crushed the big K in a match, knocking him out of a WC-cycle....

Kamsky beat Carlsen in their second game and goes on to the finals.  I suppose this will provide an opportunity for more knee-jerk, anti-Kamsky rhetoric from one of our frequent posters?  

Shirov and Karjakin drew again and will head into tie-breaks.

Kamsky is probably (imho) the best of the four semi-finalists in normal games. As Inn2 said, he is a bit stronger than the others in the middlegame. The problem is he needs a lot of time to be efficient. So, if he cannot make the difference in the first two games against Carlsen, Carlsen will emerge in the rapid and blitz games.

One of my (many) problems with Kamsky is that he either looks like he's winning easily or unsportingly playing on in dead lost positions as if he has no sense that he lost eons ago.  Since he unretired, he has slipped up badly at some stage of just about every major event he's played in.  I'm counting on him to look awful again.

Greetings,

JonHecht wrote on 12/08/07 at 20:43:26:

I meant only in terms of his style - he's still too young to really categorise it, notwithstanding his very early entry onto the world stage.

Certainly he was - and now definitely is! - one of the likeliest to be on the short list.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

I am not sure why you say that Carlsen is a dark horse. I actually had him as one of the favorites to win.

Greetings,

I was looking for any insight into their styles of play.

Shirov, obviously, is easy to categorise as a attacking player. Having said that, I think that he's grown into a more rounded player than when he played his "Fire on Board!" games.

Kamsky was in the spotlight many years ago and then all but disappeared from it when he went to the USA.

Carlsen - and particularly Karjakin (any relation to the Karjakin!?) - are dark horses, notwithstanding Carlsen's many games, mainly due to their youth.

I'd be interested to know how the titled players here perceive their respective styles.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas