is this a draw??

hope they add it soon, would be definitely a usefull tool, not only for my case, but in general, helps to improve your game.

Ah ok, well hope to see it implemented soon!

ok i will try to explain my point of view (although i'm not good in expressing my self)

As you lost on time, this means it's not even necessary to see what will happen after,  because you simply just lost on time.period, It is not oficial to see if your opponent has sufficient material or not because just after the time is finished, the game is over! no time to see if the oponent has any chances, clock is at zero! so why after zero to see if the opponent has enough material? useless,without logic

I say cheekily !...." 'cos those are the rules"

22...Bxg7 would be a much faster win

If you run out of time but have enough of a material advantage they'll give you a draw.  I'm not sure what you have to have though.  I know that it's a draw if you have a rook vs. king and you run out of time.  

If you ran out of time, how could you possibly win?

If your opponent can not achieve a mate on the board, how can they possibly win?

If neither player can win, then a draw is the only logical result.

Introducing time controls was meant to make sure games were played within a reasonable amount of time, not to give players a cheap win by running the other player out of time.

And as to your perception that you had 4 seconds left before your final move: Lag can make your time (and your opponent's time) inaccurate.  If it took too long for your move to make it to the server, then you may be declared as having run out of time even though you think you were good.

-I didn't said that i should have won,i said that i should have lost and NOT DRAWN (i repeat, only if i ran out of time)

- i already accepted that I should have had some lag because i can't explain it differently (although i remember i had 3 or 4 sec, and i remember the draw box apeared after my mate move) ,but ok, lets say I lost due to the time.

But this is not the issue, the issue is that, as I lost on time,  i should have lost the game independently what material had my oponent that moment.(my opinion) We were simply discussing the rule below (pay attention to the bold letters)

"If a player runs out of time and the opponent calls the time, then the player who ran out of time loses the game (unless the opponent does not have enough pieces to checkmate, in which case it is a draw)."

its not that I want to change the rules, simply the particular one doesnt seem so reasonable to me, thats all.

It seems unreasonable to you, because you insist on saying: "I lost on time but then... (etc.)" And then when it turns you didn't actually lose, you call this a contradiction. The problem is that your premise, "I lost on time," is false. 

Your time ran out -- is true. 

Your time ran out -- causing a check of the board: if opponent has mating material you lose. if opponent does not have mating material game drawn. 

There is no illogic there. 

It's illogic because I don't understand

I didn't mean to imply that you thought you should have won due to time.  I was trying to explain it in a way that is more reasonable.  Of course you shouldn't win if you ran out of time.  But running out of time was never meant to be an automatic loss (it just works out that way most of the time, and most casual players never learn otherwise).

The point is that you didn't lose on time, either.  You drew on time.  And the reason you were allowed this draw instead of a loss was that your opponent had no way to win.  Winning on time is only possible if the player can actually win on the board.

Let's think about it another way.  Instead of an automatic loss, let's say that you're forced to just make the worst possible move after you run out of time.  No matter what moves you make, there is no way that your opponent can win.  Why should they be awarded a win if it isn't possible to beat you on the board?  Time controls don't determine who loses, just who can't win.  It is a small, but important distinction.

There's another official rule which takes this one step further.  A player can claim a draw before they run out of time if they can prove to the TD/arbiter that their opponent is not trying to win by "normal means" (in other words, they're just trying to run their opponent out of time, but not trying to win on the board), regardless of the material or position involved.  Chess.com tries to approximate this rule by expanding the "Insufficient Material" to include some situations where a mate is technically possible, but requires both players cooperating to do it, such as King + Bishop vs. King + Knight.

pfff, from where to begin,  maybe i dont explain my thoughts well or i dont understand you guys well enough.

ok, first i want to correct saying  i draw because i ran out of time and not that i lost on time

and im saying to myself: ok i realize that, this is the rule and i cant do anything about it, BUT (lets discuss it..) why to draw after you have just run out of time? the clock is at ZERO,(like if there were i referee and giving the final wistle, END!) no meaning to see the action of the oponent, because officialy the game should be over. I realize that my opponent has insuficient material,ok, but WHO CARES about that since the game is over officialy?

what i am trying to say is that in my opinion i shouldn't have drawn, neither won of course, but  i should have lost! 

you are trying to convince me that its a draw because ok the FIDE rules says it, and ok, i say to you, i respect this rule and i will live with it, but why dont we try to see if this rule has any sense or not. And i express my opinion, acording to me, i dont think it has a sense, since the time is finished, game should be over with a loss. And i didnt said that i'm wright or wrong,maybe im confused, simply thinking about it...

another rule i didnt knew before thanks, but..how someone can claim a draw by trying to explain that his oponent is trying to waste his time and not trying to win? ok, i supose for doing that, means that he estimates his position is to bad but  if he's making "legal" moves, and not threefold repetetions for example, how can it be posible? do you have an example? ok lets finish with the previous subject first haha..