cheap wins aren’t wins

Time is an illusion.

Lunch-time doubly so.

How much time?

Sometimes, you have to. 

No other choice.

I dropped my Queen on bullet yestersay but I can still manage to flag him, lol.

There's a reason games have time limits you know. When you have had plenty of time during a game like say ten minutes per side and then you run out of time I think that's actually a win. Then there's bullet chess where the chess gets in the way of seeing who has the fastest reaction time. I guess it's all relative.

So if I have a massive advantage and I win on time while I am also about to checkmate the opponent's king next turn, does that mean I should not win the game?

I beg to differ. Winning on time is a win regardless of whoever has a massive advantage. One side simply did not use the allocated time to complete the game.

Think of it as CPR and something related. If someone collapses and nothing is done within the next few minutes, no matter how highly skilled a medical team is, the chances of survival are lower than had someone attempted CPR first.

Managing the clock is part of the game. It is the player's responsibility to manage his time effectively.

A chess-player's claim that he only lost because he ran out of time is as pointless as a car driver claiming that he only had an accident because he was drunk.

You can argue that a win by time is a valid win because you're opponent could not figure out how to oppose you in the prescribed time.

Considering the stupid losses all of us make from time to time, that makes wins due to opponent's blunders valid as well.

When radio personality Howard Stern could seem to get a rating above 1000, his coach Dan Heisman told him that most of his games were determined by who gave away the fewest pieces.  All he had to do was give away fewer piece than his opponents and his rating would rise.

So clearly you can't work your way to a club-level rating without the help of some easy wins.