So, as we get nearer and nearer to debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, I thought I'd quickly weigh in with a few observations. To keep things succinct, I'll number my points.
1. I've seen a lot of comments bringing in the subject of art. This is a misunderstanding and isn't helping the discussion. We're talking about a logo here, not the Mona Lisa; this is the realm of graphic design, not art. What's the distinction? Art is, by definition, devoid of utility (that is, it isn't created to solve any kind of practical problem). Design and artistry, on the other hand, are all about function. The logo for Lichess serves many practical purposes: it helps brand the endeavor; helps users recognize the website; it communicates an attitude and purpose of the community; et cetera.
2. Confusing a logo with artwork has led to the fallacious argument, "There's no point in voting on it because it's art and art is subjective." Yes, there would be little point in voting on the Mona Lisa. That painting has no utilitarian purpose; it wasn't trying to accomplish anything other than to please the patron and to instill the satisfaction that comes with experiencing art in the viewer. A website logo is entirely different. It has a practical purpose and it can be evaluated on objective criteria.
3. Some of the objective criteria that a graphic designer will use to evaluate a logo are as follows: (A) Does it clearly convey the line of business? If you are selling office supplies, you probably don't want a logo that is a gear, since that would suggest auto parts or some other enterprise. (B) Is it generic? If the logo could work for any number of different businesses, that's a weakness. That's one of my complaints about the current logo. It could be the logo of a riding school or horse farm. As for chess sites, it could be the logo for any chess site or chess club on the planet. (C) Does it convey what is unique or special about the brand? In the case of Lichess, I'd argue that what is unique or special about the brand are that the website is built on open-source code and is free to users.
4. Resistance to change is not unusual when changing any design of a website. If you'll remember, a lot of people were flipping out when the website's look-and-feel were changed about a year ago to increase cross-platform compatibility. That said, I do think the designer,
@sadsnake1, hit upon a logo concept that is far better than the current choice.
5. I don't think the current logo is bad. I said early on that I'd grade it a B, and still feel that way. It's OK. I was just pained to see that the designer came up with a choice that was a solid A late in the process. I wish the concept of a winged knight was proposed earlier. It's a great idea and, as I've mentioned before, I think it's almost inevitable that Lichess will eventually be using the design.
6. So far as I know, no one, outside a few Lichess staff, was aware that the website was looking for a new logo. As another user observed, that's a pity because it would have been interesting to see what some of the users would have proposed. Among Lichess's thousands and thousands of users are, no doubt, many graphic designers. It was a bit of a lost opportunity, frankly.