I just noticed that Anarchy was tagged as "advanced".  This kind of begs the question, what does advanced mean?  Is it difficult to play?  Difficult to win? Difficult to understand?  

My thoughts..

Difficult to play?  Not at all, it plays like the regular game in most every respect.  Sure, the continents bonuses are inflated, and the cards get up there quickly ..but the board and borders are the  standard ones that every player is familiar with. You get armies; you put 'em on the board; you attack; what you see is what you get.  Default is with no fog.

Difficult to win?  Well, the jury will be out on that one, but as the current top player, I can tell you that I've been winning using pretty much the standard strategy of going for continental bonuses, with perhaps a slight modification in that I know that some territories tend to see more production than others, but I'm pretty sure that this only marginally changes the way I play, if at all.  Sure, the fact that there are many more battles with larger stacks than what you would see in a standard game will have an impact on tactics, but these should be apparent to any player who is competent with the standard game.

Difficult to understand?  It depends on how we interpret the question. It may be difficult to understand how the factories are set up (though it's child's play compared to what Ed. N. does with factories)., but a careful read of the description would reveal that the way in which armies are put on the board is not that hard to understand, ..though it might be hard to predict actual results from turn to turn because of territories changing hands in a game with 3 or more players.

When players do seem to have trouble understanding what's going on, I wonder that it is because the army production paradigm is so out of the box ..or counter-intuitive to them, they just can't bring themselves to accept that their own territories actually put armies on their opponent's territories.  Yet in fact, the mechanics are quite simple.

I understand all of your points M, but I would have said that "Advanced" doesn't necessarily equate to Difficult in any way.
I always thought that "Advanced" = "For Advanced Players."

Translation:
Green = For even the most newbie of WG'ers
Yellow = For players who have familiarized themselves with the WG player window, and have played a good set of regular games, and now want to broaden their horizons
Red = For players who are very familiar with WarGear, its available features (they understand that factories, as a feature, exist) and that the game will have more complex game dynamics that do not mirror those of other boards.

For instance: EN's Rescue isn't Difficult to play, win, or understand (assuming we remove HOW he actually designed the board, and only think about the gameplay itself, for instance), but it is still a Red board, because it just happens to be one that is more complicated than the green (Risk Clones, and other basic conquer maps) or yellow (Backgammon, for instance) boards.

That all being said, Anarchy is definitely easier to play than the Go boards, so how it is a Red board and they are yellow, I don't understand.

I agree with BTF, I think Anarchy is a borderline yellow-red. There are boards (such as Go) that should be rank reds before Anarchy though. 

I agree with Anarchy being a Red map, at least for now.  The Factory Hording thing is very confusing and does take some getting used to.  Having useless armies spawning in Australia is cool but frustrating to keep transferring them out.  It would be yellow if you had "Fortify to any connecting" but with only 2 and to adjacent I think Red is called for here.

Again, it's for advanced players, not that it's hard to figure out.  Episode 1 has nothing special about it but it is an Advanced map because of the strategy it takes and the learning curve.  I have no issues with it being there.  Personally I think Risky Kong should be an Advanced Map because of the unique play, but that's just me and any N00b I've ever played a game with.

Fair enough -- just thought I'd throw it out there for discussion -- OMG, fortify to adjacent??? I shudder to think..

Agreed that Go is advanced (and difficult).  

Risky - I second Risky Kong being moved to Red as well.

Boris has a pretty good breakdown of my thought process for Green/Yellow/Red and now that we have a bit of a group of boards in each I normally do some comparison as to what else is in that group to see which category the new board fits in.  The number of Factories and add Continent structure is what lead me to tag it as Red.  I'm definitely up for changing/modifying as needed though.

As for Go...

We've had this discussion before but maybe it's time to revisit the idea of a more sophisticated rating system. As the designer tools become more powerful, more and more boards are un-Risk-like, yet they vary widely in terms of their ease to understand, ease of play, difficulty to master, etc..  Tags are good as physical map descriptors, but maybe not so good for describing the above named attributes.   Also, I think it puts a lot of burden on the one person (Yertle) who is responsible for pigeon-holing such a subjective array of characteristics and then scaling them.