The brilliant game Martinez-Zilberstein only finished third in the 2007 US Chess League Game of the Year voting (thanks primarily to Adamson's 10th place vote), but I think the decision to dock it on account of Martinez's heavy prep was an unfortunate decision at best. (Not wrong, exactly, as we judges were given free reign to vote as we saw fit. Theoretically we could award votes to players based on the length of their last names.) I made the argument for the game as #1 during my ChessVideos show, and now USCL Commissioner Greg Shahade has spoken out in its favor as well. (Note that Arun Sharma, USCL blogger and Vice-Commish or whatever his title is, also picked the game as his #1 choice.*) Here's what he has to say:
I think that awarding a game fewer points because one of the key moves was opening preparation is completely unprecedented in voting for "best game competitions". Also even after this novelty, black isn't totally lost, they can definitely put up a strong fight, and the game went on for 20-30 more moves, which Martinez conducted in a glamorous fashion. Imagine how Kasparov would have felt if he played a brilliant game and the judges discredited it because he found one strong and spectacular move at home and then won 30 moves later. I think if the players were Nakamura - Christiansen, instead of Martinez vs Zilberstein, this game would have won in a landslide.
I agree with Greg, but to be "fair and balanced" (to quote a slogan), the effect of the novelty** is a bit stronger than he claims. The game only went another 14 moves, and the last six were unnecessary. Also, it's highly unlikely that Martinez's preparation ended with 22.Bh6; that would be insane. It's reasonably likely that it continued to at least 28.Ng5+ as well, so Martinez might have made every meaningful move in his home prep. (If someone in the know can say exactly when his prep ended, that might be helpful.) I still think it deserved first place, but the amount of prep shouldn't be underestimated.
* Note that I'm happy to use Sharma as a supporting witness on those rare occasions when he agrees with me.
** Actually, it was Zilberstein who made the novelty on move 18, (dis)improving on a game they played the month before, but as everyone is referring to Martinez's 22nd move as the novelty I'll maintain that practice.