Subjectivity is one thing, but abusing it is another. Lichess, though a nonprofit, makes decisions that can have indirect promotional and profitable effects. For example, "Game of the Month" posts receive significantly more attention than most other posts, guiding viewers (some of whom may be channel owners themselves) to specific player profiles. A recent case saw a player's subscriber count jump from 32 to 679 after Lichess selected their game—later also covered by Agadmator’s channel.
Dismissing valid concerns as mere "attacks" is neither logical nor responsible. While some subjectivity is inevitable in game selection, experienced players often reach a general consensus on outstanding games. The issue arises when subjectivity is stretched to justify arbitrary choices without accountability. The takeaway is that strong play comes from effort and practice, not just ratings—viewers in the chat even highlighted specific games for comparison. If the commentator had a valid counterpoint, they could have addressed it directly instead of dismissing others' arguments.
Lichess stated, "Our team carefully checked all submitted games," while the commentator said, "GOTM is not an accuracy contest." My conjecture is that the commentator themselves understood the chosen game did not truly deserve to be a candidate. What surprises me more is the effort spent defending the decision rather than providing an honest explanation.
P.S. Please stop saying that chess is a draw with perfect play. Nobody knows objectively yet.
Dismissing valid concerns as mere "attacks" is neither logical nor responsible. While some subjectivity is inevitable in game selection, experienced players often reach a general consensus on outstanding games. The issue arises when subjectivity is stretched to justify arbitrary choices without accountability. The takeaway is that strong play comes from effort and practice, not just ratings—viewers in the chat even highlighted specific games for comparison. If the commentator had a valid counterpoint, they could have addressed it directly instead of dismissing others' arguments.
Lichess stated, "Our team carefully checked all submitted games," while the commentator said, "GOTM is not an accuracy contest." My conjecture is that the commentator themselves understood the chosen game did not truly deserve to be a candidate. What surprises me more is the effort spent defending the decision rather than providing an honest explanation.
P.S. Please stop saying that chess is a draw with perfect play. Nobody knows objectively yet.
@MrWabiSabi said in #2:
> Subjectivity is one thing, but abusing it is another. Lichess, though a nonprofit, makes decisions that can have indirect promotional and profitable effects. For example, "Game of the Month" posts receive significantly more attention than most other posts, guiding viewers (some of whom may be channel owners themselves) to specific player profiles. A recent case saw a player's subscriber count jump from 32 to 679 after Lichess selected their game—later also covered by Agadmator’s channel.
>
> Dismissing valid concerns as mere "attacks" is neither logical nor responsible. While some subjectivity is inevitable in game selection, experienced players often reach a general consensus on outstanding games. The issue arises when subjectivity is stretched to justify arbitrary choices without accountability. The takeaway is that strong play comes from effort and practice, not just ratings—viewers in the chat even highlighted specific games for comparison. If the commentator had a valid counterpoint, they could have addressed it directly instead of dismissing others' arguments.
>
> Lichess stated, "Our team carefully checked all submitted games," while the commentator said, "GOTM is not an accuracy contest." My conjecture is that the commentator themselves understood the chosen game did not truly deserve to be a candidate. What surprises me more is the effort spent defending the decision rather than providing an honest explanation.
>
> P.S. Please stop saying that chess is a draw with perfect play. Nobody knows objectively yet.
What would you define as "best" game? If what you want is a 99% accuracy game for both sides, we may as well submit the Berlin opening draw line... Obviously GOTM is gonna be subjective and everybody is going to have their own opinion. Me personally, I wouldn't have picked this specific game, but I understand why it was chosen, it has an interesting material imbalance, there's a lot of tactical details, and, without an engine, the position looks extremely unclear for a big portion of the game.
However, you are taking it a bit too far and you even went to the game's spectator chat, submitted a whole lot of messages complaining (so many that you even got timed out) when the player who submitted the game is not at fault at all, even if we take your word and the GOTM award is as unfair as you say it is.
I don't care if you really do it because you think it's "justice", or if you're mad because your game didn't get picked, but at least you could be considerate enough to not go to the player's profile as if it was their fault, and at least give a concrete explanation or definition of what you think a "best game" should be before you try to claim that the decisions are biased (which they may be, but your many complaints haven't proven it to be true so far).
> Subjectivity is one thing, but abusing it is another. Lichess, though a nonprofit, makes decisions that can have indirect promotional and profitable effects. For example, "Game of the Month" posts receive significantly more attention than most other posts, guiding viewers (some of whom may be channel owners themselves) to specific player profiles. A recent case saw a player's subscriber count jump from 32 to 679 after Lichess selected their game—later also covered by Agadmator’s channel.
>
> Dismissing valid concerns as mere "attacks" is neither logical nor responsible. While some subjectivity is inevitable in game selection, experienced players often reach a general consensus on outstanding games. The issue arises when subjectivity is stretched to justify arbitrary choices without accountability. The takeaway is that strong play comes from effort and practice, not just ratings—viewers in the chat even highlighted specific games for comparison. If the commentator had a valid counterpoint, they could have addressed it directly instead of dismissing others' arguments.
>
> Lichess stated, "Our team carefully checked all submitted games," while the commentator said, "GOTM is not an accuracy contest." My conjecture is that the commentator themselves understood the chosen game did not truly deserve to be a candidate. What surprises me more is the effort spent defending the decision rather than providing an honest explanation.
>
> P.S. Please stop saying that chess is a draw with perfect play. Nobody knows objectively yet.
What would you define as "best" game? If what you want is a 99% accuracy game for both sides, we may as well submit the Berlin opening draw line... Obviously GOTM is gonna be subjective and everybody is going to have their own opinion. Me personally, I wouldn't have picked this specific game, but I understand why it was chosen, it has an interesting material imbalance, there's a lot of tactical details, and, without an engine, the position looks extremely unclear for a big portion of the game.
However, you are taking it a bit too far and you even went to the game's spectator chat, submitted a whole lot of messages complaining (so many that you even got timed out) when the player who submitted the game is not at fault at all, even if we take your word and the GOTM award is as unfair as you say it is.
I don't care if you really do it because you think it's "justice", or if you're mad because your game didn't get picked, but at least you could be considerate enough to not go to the player's profile as if it was their fault, and at least give a concrete explanation or definition of what you think a "best game" should be before you try to claim that the decisions are biased (which they may be, but your many complaints haven't proven it to be true so far).
<Comment deleted by user>
My superb game with Stockfish 4
@FairChess36
I got timed out because I sent a link to a blog post and the game I submitted for the competition as a comparison. If you check the chat, you’ll see that some players argue based on their rating and try to bully others. However, I made it clear that I was not attacking any player but rather criticizing the Lichess team.
There is nothing wrong with people submitting their games for the contest. My issue was explicitly with Lichess, as they claim to review all submissions, but I believe they do not actually go through them as they say. The timeout happened because my message contained a link—not because of a personal attack. I do not engage in such behavior.
Regarding the term "best," I agree that subjectivity plays a role. However, common sense also matters. Subjectivity usually affects borderline cases, but not obvious ones. The selected game is not bad, but I don’t think it should be considered Game of the Month compared to other submissions.
As for my motivations, I believe "fairness" and "improvement" are valuable concepts that make this issue worth discussing. However, I never claimed that fairness or improvement was my primary motivation. My main reason for submitting my game was that if it had been selected, it could have helped bring more attention to the free chess course I created—something I worked on with passion and without external support.
That being said, whether or not you believe my reasoning, I would not have complained if Lichess had chosen a game that made more sense. This is simply not my style. I understand subjectivity, but I also recognize when a decision lacks justification.
Since I suspect Lichess does not thoroughly review all submitted games, I sent my game as a counterexample—to show that stronger games were overlooked. This does not mean I believe my game was the best; rather, I wanted to highlight that Lichess was not fulfilling its commitment to reviewing submissions.
To support my case, I mentioned my rating and the accuracy of my game—not to suggest these factors alone define the outcome, but to show that my submission had merit for comparison. A game featuring two precise rook sacrifices, played in a 3-minute time control, with the opponent’s king being driven to the center, seems like a stronger candidate than one with frequent mistakes in relatively simple positions.
I got timed out because I sent a link to a blog post and the game I submitted for the competition as a comparison. If you check the chat, you’ll see that some players argue based on their rating and try to bully others. However, I made it clear that I was not attacking any player but rather criticizing the Lichess team.
There is nothing wrong with people submitting their games for the contest. My issue was explicitly with Lichess, as they claim to review all submissions, but I believe they do not actually go through them as they say. The timeout happened because my message contained a link—not because of a personal attack. I do not engage in such behavior.
Regarding the term "best," I agree that subjectivity plays a role. However, common sense also matters. Subjectivity usually affects borderline cases, but not obvious ones. The selected game is not bad, but I don’t think it should be considered Game of the Month compared to other submissions.
As for my motivations, I believe "fairness" and "improvement" are valuable concepts that make this issue worth discussing. However, I never claimed that fairness or improvement was my primary motivation. My main reason for submitting my game was that if it had been selected, it could have helped bring more attention to the free chess course I created—something I worked on with passion and without external support.
That being said, whether or not you believe my reasoning, I would not have complained if Lichess had chosen a game that made more sense. This is simply not my style. I understand subjectivity, but I also recognize when a decision lacks justification.
Since I suspect Lichess does not thoroughly review all submitted games, I sent my game as a counterexample—to show that stronger games were overlooked. This does not mean I believe my game was the best; rather, I wanted to highlight that Lichess was not fulfilling its commitment to reviewing submissions.
To support my case, I mentioned my rating and the accuracy of my game—not to suggest these factors alone define the outcome, but to show that my submission had merit for comparison. A game featuring two precise rook sacrifices, played in a 3-minute time control, with the opponent’s king being driven to the center, seems like a stronger candidate than one with frequent mistakes in relatively simple positions.
@MrWabiSabi
I'm not gonna keep discussing what a "best" game should be, because the definition you're giving (although you're barely giving one) is too vague and we're not gonna agree, since I still think this month's game was not that bad of a choice.
Regarding the more important part for me, even if you didn't intend to harass the player, which maybe you didn't, going to their profile to post so many messages saying that their award was undeserved, their game wasn't good enough and your game was better (even if you didn't say that it was the absolute best) could still affect them mentally, which was my main point. If you're only mad at lichess for not considering your game over his, and because your course isn't getting the atention that you want, then go complain to them, which I wouldn't disagree with if that was all you did. You can propose a better system that would lead to less games like this being chosen, but in this case you're only complaining but not proposing a solution.
Anyways, good luck with your course, I don't think you're a bad person, but you should direct your anger/dissapointment towards a better place.
I'm not gonna keep discussing what a "best" game should be, because the definition you're giving (although you're barely giving one) is too vague and we're not gonna agree, since I still think this month's game was not that bad of a choice.
Regarding the more important part for me, even if you didn't intend to harass the player, which maybe you didn't, going to their profile to post so many messages saying that their award was undeserved, their game wasn't good enough and your game was better (even if you didn't say that it was the absolute best) could still affect them mentally, which was my main point. If you're only mad at lichess for not considering your game over his, and because your course isn't getting the atention that you want, then go complain to them, which I wouldn't disagree with if that was all you did. You can propose a better system that would lead to less games like this being chosen, but in this case you're only complaining but not proposing a solution.
Anyways, good luck with your course, I don't think you're a bad person, but you should direct your anger/dissapointment towards a better place.
@MrWabiSabi
I think you are taking things a little too seriously. The Game of the Month Contest is a contest for bragging rights. In its current iteration, I don’t even tink there is a trophy for it. Anyway, my point being the contest is for fun. One of my hobbies on this website is looking through game of the month submissions and commenting on games I find interesting. Each month there are several games that are high quality enough that I could make an argument should be game of the month. It is a shame more games cannot be honored.
But it takes the fun out of the competition when people incessantly complain about the outcome. Judging a chess game is an inherently subjective exercise. Don't like the winner? Try again next month with another game! Please do not come on the message board to complain. This is a contest just for fun, and when you complain you are taking all the fun out of it.
I think you are taking things a little too seriously. The Game of the Month Contest is a contest for bragging rights. In its current iteration, I don’t even tink there is a trophy for it. Anyway, my point being the contest is for fun. One of my hobbies on this website is looking through game of the month submissions and commenting on games I find interesting. Each month there are several games that are high quality enough that I could make an argument should be game of the month. It is a shame more games cannot be honored.
But it takes the fun out of the competition when people incessantly complain about the outcome. Judging a chess game is an inherently subjective exercise. Don't like the winner? Try again next month with another game! Please do not come on the message board to complain. This is a contest just for fun, and when you complain you are taking all the fun out of it.
@FairChess36
I contacted Lichess, but they did not respond. I also don’t think Lichess notifies a player when someone writes in chat. There is a setting that allows players to hide chat and even report it if they find it offensive, in addition to the Lichess bot, which helps prevent different kinds of spam. If my messages caused annoyance, @Druismat , I sincerely apologize. My intention was simply to criticize Lichess, and I wasn’t aware of a better place to do so.
Years ago, before the rise of computers and scientific methods, many things were dismissed as purely subjective. Given that this is a comment and not a scientific paper, I provided a few high-level, simplified criteria—such as high accuracy (98% vs. sub-90%), precise tactical execution, and a successful king hunt—as stronger indicators of a high-quality game than frequent mistakes in non-complex positions and missed opportunities. Yet your response is simply that everything I say is vague?
@yojoey
I understand that some of you prefer to approach these things for fun, and for that reason, I’ll end my messages here. However, it’s worth considering that not everyone submits their games just for fun—some may have other reasons that make it important to them. It would have been better if Lichess had handled this matter with more responsibility.
I contacted Lichess, but they did not respond. I also don’t think Lichess notifies a player when someone writes in chat. There is a setting that allows players to hide chat and even report it if they find it offensive, in addition to the Lichess bot, which helps prevent different kinds of spam. If my messages caused annoyance, @Druismat , I sincerely apologize. My intention was simply to criticize Lichess, and I wasn’t aware of a better place to do so.
Years ago, before the rise of computers and scientific methods, many things were dismissed as purely subjective. Given that this is a comment and not a scientific paper, I provided a few high-level, simplified criteria—such as high accuracy (98% vs. sub-90%), precise tactical execution, and a successful king hunt—as stronger indicators of a high-quality game than frequent mistakes in non-complex positions and missed opportunities. Yet your response is simply that everything I say is vague?
@yojoey
I understand that some of you prefer to approach these things for fun, and for that reason, I’ll end my messages here. However, it’s worth considering that not everyone submits their games just for fun—some may have other reasons that make it important to them. It would have been better if Lichess had handled this matter with more responsibility.
On March 5th I will March to the throne with
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/look-who-pawn-mated-after-a4#7
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/look-who-pawn-mated-after-a4#1
And get the Lichess Game of the Month.
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/look-who-pawn-mated-after-a4#7
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/look-who-pawn-mated-after-a4#1
And get the Lichess Game of the Month.