I was at 1799 and was looking forward to touch 1800 rating. All of a sudden saw 1811 rating against my name. Was surprised because I wasn't expecting any game to win by resignation. Discovered that I won a game on time although I was a bishop and some pawns behind, not to speak of inferior position. So reaching 1800 didn't give me the joy I was anticipating - as I felt I did not deserve these 12 points.

I think a somewhat acceptable solution to this kind of situation is to allow a computer program to decide whether their was a difference of 2 points in favour of winner or not and then only give rating points.

If you don't deserve your rating, you'll go down again soon. No worries.

Time management goes hand-in-hand with any form of competitive chess ... both live or correspondence. Your opponent got flagged, plain and simple.

If Chess.com were to not award rating adjustments for flagged (time-out) games (because the "winner" felt that he did not deserve it) than don't you think every winning  player will run his clock just to avoid the risk of losing later on due to poor technique?

Your solution of having a computer evaluate the board based on material (points?) to determine if it was a win or loss is not going to fly because there is a zero guarantee that the winning side has the right technique to close out the game even if he/she had the time!  (KBN vs K being an extreme example). Ask yourself this => You play a GM and you drop a full piece. Resign immediately? Sure ... but what about a player at a club-level/intermediate strength level? Not the same thing is it? Your opponent could have scuttled the game and at best, made it a draw. Who knows?

That is why most Federation rules (USCF for example) have the "insufficient losing chances" clause to award draws to prevent a time-out loss from a clearly winning position.  BUT even THEY won't award a win for the reasons mentioned above.

So if I were allowed to modify your suggestion => perhaps award a draw-based rating adjustment if the flagged side had THEORETICALLY insufficient losing chances.

you think that is bad? I broke 1800 when a mid 1900er timed out on both our games and we weren't even done the book moves

Well, my rating has reached 1828 now! I have "won" yet another game - no prizes for guessing - on time control against a player called JOKKO. His account has been closed by chess.com.

I am well on my way to become one of the most dreaded payer on this site - whoever plays with me, will get into time control problem, one way or the other!!

When you think about it.. 1799 is like 1800.. 1 rating difference! so i believe you deserve 1800 because you already hit it by acheiving 1799!

 Thanks SerbianChessStar for your support and kind words. But 99 is 99 and 100 is a "century". But thanks again.

BTW my 1799 itself consists of around 5 time outs by my opponents, which may have resulted in another 100 points "gift".

All my victories is because of my opponent's bad play, thats a gift too...

"I am gifted because my opponent plays bad" - SerbianChessStar :P

You guys have a point. Why am I trying to find a way to lessen my happiness? I should be enjoying the moment. Thanks for showing me the path to truth, oh Buddhas :)