While this is extremely interesting, the fact that 99% of those voting are either Russian or Ukrainian does make the list and the choices quite biased.  
 
The Anand-Carlsen Game 9 is not in the top 40 while their sharp draw in the Berlin is? Ok, game 9 ended in a big blunder, but it was one of the most resourceful defences in chess ever! The draw had a important mistake too, but Vishy got some great counterplay for it. 
 
Very surprising for me.

2 ChessFan

The fact that you had to bring up the nationality of the experts makes me think that your comment is "quite biased". And, of course, the "99% Russian/Ukrainian claim" is far from accurate in the sense that you either have no idea what federations some of these people represent, or are too bad at Math to count properly.  
 
Are you trying to say that all the GMs have a) been trying to discriminate Carlsen/Anand for a certain reason b) have done it due to being mostly Russian/Ukrainian?  
 
Of course, one can argue for hours about this or that game. Game 9 was quite important in the historical sense, but it's not one of those masterpieces that you will be showing to children and teaching them how to play chess. After all, White did blunder quite badly there, and that was it. Had Anand won that game with a brilliant attack, I am sure it would have been rated quite highly.

http://pogonina.com

2 ChessFan

I must also add that the selection process is indeed seriously biased in the sense that Maxim Notkin chooses the long list of games for each month, the best of which make it to the final list. A quick research shows that Game 9 of the match wasn't nominated at all in the November issue of the 2013 chart, thus making it impossible for it to appear on the final standings. Conclusion: if you wish to assign blame on someone, then target Notkin

http://pogonina.com

2 ChessFan

Peter, of course my \\\"99% are Russian or Ukrainian\\\" was an exaggeration, it was not meant to be accurate math (as only in the first 2 lines of judges Miguel, David, and Movsesian are not either), it was meant to emphasize a point, i. e. the poll/award didn\\\'t in my humble opinion even try to be objective, let alone BE objective. 
 
I am not saying anyone is trying to discriminate anyone else, I am saying that it is a lot more normal for me while, for e.g., I am Motylev and I am a judge in such a contest to not vote for a game where the guy I am a second for (Karjakin) has been beaten from a drawish position, i.e. outplayed. Also, it is a lot more normal for me, Rublevski, to vote for fellow Russians who I am coaching right now. this doesn\\\'t have to be an intentional discrimination, but this means that it is far from being objective. The examples can go on. Had this even attempted to be objective, at least one could send a list of games / just the question - which would have been a lot more objective in my opinion - to the top 20/50/100/2700+/anything players in the world. 
 
My main problem with the list is choosing game 4 of the WCh Match and not choosing game 9. In game 4, a Berlin end/middlegame, Anand blundered a pawn in the opening and had to attack in order to get any sort of compensation for it, which he did very well, while Carlsen played a decent game and defended well but didn\\\'t play any of his amazing games and still made a few inaccuracies when he was close to getting a winning position. Game 9 was an extremely sharp f3 Nimzo (which by the way set a trend in high level chess lately apparently, but that doesn\\\'t matter too much either) where white pawn stormed the black king and where any inaccuracy by Carlsen would have meant 1-0 immediately. You say that \\\"Had Anand won that game with a brilliant attack, I am sure it would have been rated quite highly\\\". So, if black wins the game should not be on the list, if white wins the game should? Should a brilliant attack be considered \\\"better\\\" than a perfect defense? And I do mean \\\"PERFECT\\\". In the same sense Kramnik\\\'s amazing studylike defense aginst Svidler in the Candidateswas amazing too, but that game had quite a few inaccuracies along the way, while the Anand-Carlsen game was played not very far from perfect chess up to the only blunder. I thought it was a list of \\\"best games\\\", not \\\"best attacks\\\". Carlsen had to queen, to sac the queen for a knight so that he could defend h7 with the bishop which could come to the help only because the g6 square was no longer occupied by black\\\'s pawn after the queen sac. And all this not to get a winning advantage, but to get an equalish (not drawish, just equal) position. In conclusion, a draw with imperfect play by both sides in a Berlin end/middlegame features on the list and one of the most original defensive manoeuvres and a perfect defense doesn\\\'t? Game 9 isn\\\'t a masterpiece you show to your kids while game 4, the magnificient draw in the Berlin is, according to whoever chose the games? Sorry, for me this is crap, purely chess-wise. 
 
Last but not least, is the list of \\\"best chess game PLAYED\\\" (as the title suggested) or is it the best chess preparation? Does computer home prep=best game, or should it be about the best mind working OTB to try and find the best solutions in a practically extremely difficult position? Anand masterpiece against Aronian was great, but, alas, it was decided by a computer before the game and not by the chess brains of one player. For me even Kramnik - Fresinnet should be much higher on the list then the home preped Anand masterpiece.

2 ChessFan

Imo, you are taking this contest too seriously. There are no criterions here. Think of it as a beauty contest: we can argue forever who of the 10 girls is more beautiful than the others. It's a matter of taste. Also, for some reason you chose to pick the most ridiculous scenarios (like Rublevsky allegedly voting for members of his team - btw, I hope you realize that he is coaching the WOMEN'S TEAM, right?). A more striking example to support your case would be people who are asked to assess their own play. For example, Grischuk and a few other players were nominated, so, following your logic, they should have probably voted for themselves.  
 
The world is generally unfair. I am sure that quite a few great games haven't been nominated for "game of the month" due to not being high-profile enough or to some other reasons. There is always room for improvement. If you feel like surveying all the 2700+ players and can guarantee that they will reply to you and provide detailed, objective and fair evaluations of ALL the games played in a certain year, then go ahead and do it. The chess community will applaud your efforts

http://pogonina.com

2 ChessFan

1. The judges should not decide if its prepared or "on-the-board", they should only decide on the game and the moves on the board. Anand-Aronian a fantastic game by 2 of the best chess players.  
The Jobava game is also superb.  
 
Thanks for the list!

2 ChessFan

Its funny to stereotype the Aronian -Anand game as home preparation, I mean, c'mon pls show me ONE game from the above list that did not involve any preparations.. It is funny coming from a WGM! learn to appreciate good games, credit them. Its funny to see people talk like they have never turned on their "stockfish" or "fritz" !