Losing with more material

Who creates the rules for losing a blitz game? It sure seems like if you are are absolutely crushing your opponent when your time runs out you should win. I can understand if it is somewhat close you should lose, but if you are up a queen or more it sure seems like you should be awarded the win for better play.

"...when your time runs..."

Then you lose.

Time is also important. In this instance, you used more time to get a better position, your opponent used less and as long as they have sufficient mating material then you lose when running out of time.

I strongly disagree. In fact, time is a factor to why blitz is fun. Time is worth more than a queen especially when you are 1 or 2 seconds away from timeout in a game with no increment or 1 second increment.

Even in programming, writing a code with a very very slim change of going wrong is usually preferable to writing an ideally perfect code which requires multifold effort, knowledge and time.

Also, to add, you do have a game which you were losing badly when you actually won on time, as below. Wouldn't you be contradicting yourself then? I could say that your opponent deserved the win based on your argument, but why did you not complain about it?

It's improbable for White to win here, but it's because of that possibility of checkmate that you are awarded the win. And it is why blitz is fun.

A player who complains that he only lost the game because his time ran out is like a car driver who claims that he only had an accident because he was drunk.

It's your clock. Managing your time is your responsibility.

This ranks right up there with:

"I only get disconnected when I'm winning."

"Why do i get the black pieces 104% of the time???"

You're forgetting " why do my opponents never take my rematches" and " en passant shouldn't be allowed!"

You snooze, you lose. That's the rule.

Many of you are missing the point and that's fine. I'm sure if my rating was three times higher you would listen, of course it just dropped 200 points as I work on learning a new opening, but whatever. My point is that it is antiquated. It is a rule made before computers could give an unbiased and accurate decision as to who is winning. and if you want to reward better time management have an incremental penalty based on the time difference. Say, a penalty of 1.25 score per minute left on your opponents clock. It makes more sense. It's more representative of the game outcome. 

It's also funny that some of you are acting like I'm using it as an excuse. I never said I only lose because of the clock. It is just something that as an analytical person when I break it down logically, it makes no sense. I even heard some GM's saying the clock was never meant to be a weapon when commentating a game. So I started to think about it a little more. 

Maybe y'all should too.

Your rating doesn't matter. You agree to a time control and the rules are that you must complete the game in the allotted time or you lose, as long as your opponent has sufficient material.

The simple fact is that if you use more time than your opponent to get a winning position and can't manage to finish the game, you don't deserve a win, regardless of the material or positional superiority. Had you used less time you may not have had that position to begin with.

Yes it sucks to have a completely winning position and to lose on time. Everyone has had it happen, even GMs. Doesn't mean that getting a superior position should give you the win if you run out of time.

Still ignoring my point that it is an antiquated rule. Rules for all sports change over time evolving when technology changes the game. Same thing here. There should be an option for games where a decision is made by the engine as to who had superiority. I'm fine with the outcome being the way it is as the rules are set up, I'm questioning why the rules haven't adapted. Y'all's argument is essentially, "This is the way it is, so that's the way it is." That's circular logic. Pretty sure most of you know that when that is used it means you're already wrong.

Then why not just adjudicate the game as soon a one player has a winning advantage?

I'm not missing your point, I'm wholeheartedly disagreeing with your point. While time is not meant to be the final arbiter, one player can't just use all their time to get a winning position to then be awarded the win regardless of having no time. Be a better steward of the clock and maintain enough time to bring home the win. It is a skill just like any other chess skill.

That's why I said there could be penalties for the difference in time. The other thing that is interesting by people dismissing it out of hand is that with internet chess especially, we have different options, so why not make one with such rules for people to play?

Instead, y'all are dismissing it out of hand. Which is very telling.

And yes rating matters. If Magnus Carlsen said it should be considered, pretty sure peoplewould at least take a minute to think instead of replying with no actual thought. Which is exactly what is being done. 

Creating additional specifications for gain/loss of rating for this will be immensely difficult to program for a chess program which is already very difficult to program.

I still prefer the simpler format of scoring (a simple +1 for a win, 0 for draw and -1 for loss) rather than incorporating complicated scoring systems based on material left.

It just means that the proportion of players in support of this idea is too little to cause any change.

I play bullet games for the clock, not for the position. Counting the final position based on the material left just diminishes the importance of time in fast-control games, rendering time factor irrelevant to even fast games since such scoring systems would lead to players playing more slowly to preserve their pieces in general (defeating the purpose of fast control games especially bullet). So, I will still prefer to be on the other side of the discussion.

I'm meaning to determine a game-winner. It can still be noted at 1-0, 0-1, and .5 - .5, but if a computer's evaluation is say, -72, and black runs out of time. In the format I am proposing to be considered black would still be the winner. 

For a start, it's going to be hard for you to make the change for the entire chess community since not enough people are supportive. Having said that, in your local chess club (when the virus situation dies down), you could come up with this scoring idea and if the players there are supportive, you can try this scoring system on a trial basis.