Ideal or real - that is the question.In this work, we explore whether principles from game theory can be effectively applied to the evaluation of large language models (LLMs). This inquiry is motivated by the growing inadequacy of conventional evaluation practices, which often rely on fixed-format tasks with reference answers and struggle to capture the nuanced, subjective, and open-ended nature of modern LLM behavior. To address these challenges, we propose a novel alternative: automatic mutual evaluation, where LLMs assess each other's output through self-play and peer review. These peer assessments are then systematically compared with human voting behavior to evaluate their alignment with human judgment. Our framework incorporates game-theoretic voting algorithms to aggregate peer reviews, enabling a principled investigation into whether model-generated rankings reflect human preferences. Empirical results reveal both convergences and divergences between theoretical predictions and human evaluations, offering valuable insights into the promises and limitations of mutual evaluation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to jointly integrate mutual evaluation, game-theoretic aggregation, and human-grounded validation for evaluating the capabilities of LLMs.