Blitz game lost for time expired

I am not Sarg0n, but one could also claim, that it is right, that the player without time shall always lose, even in cases where his opponent has also a single king left. After all, we don't know the material balance, if the timeloser had played faster.

This isn't really answering the question. Any rule outside of the nuclear option (any position except KvK or K v single piece = loss) is going to result in some arguably bad outcomes. The importance is trying to minimize bad outcomes while maximizing the utility of the rule.

And so another way of phrasing this is does allowing a win on time when you have what is generally insufficient mating material short of often esoteric help mates result in an average better outcome or an average worseoutcome? Does it provide more or less 'utility' to the game of chess?

If you ask me, ALL games where one player runs out of time ought be considered a win for the opponent, even if they only have a naked king left. I mean, that's the point of the clock, isn't it - if your time is up, you lose. Period.

At least, such a rule would minimize the headache of people who cannot understand the current one.

I think people often forget what was mentioned. Rules are meant to try to remain within the spirit of what is right and what is wrong, rather than being an arbitrary distinction of right and wrong in and of themselves. The clock was 'invented' to deter bad behavior. It did not exist until at some point in the past working to agitate or exhaust opponents by taking unreasonably long periods of time to make one's move started to become more common - creating a highly undesirable meta that was not great for the game. So the clock was added. Interestingly enough you also did not lose if you ran out of time. Rather you had to pay a fine, with a recurring fine for each 'x' minutes over the allotted.

And so too here the rules should always be geared towards what OUGHT be right. And while Sargon obviously gets some jollies solving the helpmates to explain the rule, I imagine even he would be hard pressed to argue that this rule is making chess a better game.

But there is no reasonable alternative. Adjudications by engine are a veritable can of worms, too, with as much potential for "bad decisions".

Take, for example, game 6 of the Carlsen - Caruana match. Suppose Carlsen had timed out in the critical position with the mate in 30-something for Caruana.

Win or draw?

Can an engine decide with confidence that there is no way to win when we still have such a phenomenon like the horizon effect (and Lichess can't let Stockfish think on every game for hours)?
Is the mere existence of a forced mate enough evidence that the game could have still been won by a player, even if no human grandmaster saw it?
Where do you draw the line? Is a KRP vs KR game with a Lucena position still "won" for players of sub 1000 strength who have no clue about endgame theory?

#15 Clearly the only solution is to have people play from the position... oh wait, the player's time expired. Maybe play with an increment or manage time better so it doesn't expire.

@ProfDrHack I completely agree. That's what I was referring to when I said any solution (outside of the nuclear option) is going to have some arguably bad outcomes. But in general the solution we have where a single piece can be considered mating material seems to lead almost exclusively to bad outcomes.

I think the optimal solution is pretty simple and what online sites have traditionally done. If you have any material configuration other than a single minor piece, then you are considered to have sufficient mating material (though this is not always true) and thus if your opponent flags - he loses. The simplicity there is also good for chess as a game. Having to be able to solve esoteric help mates to determine who wins a game is not great.

#16
Exactly. In times where we do have such a thing as increment, this really SHOULD be a non-issue.

Whoever refuses to play with increment does so at their own risk. No right to claim half-points based on some vague evaluation that the opponent would suuuuurely not have won. Who can tell. A 10 second analysis from Stockfish certainly can't.

#17
The esoteric help mates are actually not that hard to see once one has realized that pawns can be promoted.
Rule of thumb: As long as any side has a pawn left, there's a high chance that mate is still in the cards. Very simple too.

There‘s an almost universal rule in all games and sports, in fact the fairest solution towards the opponents. Wanna know?

At a certain point, if an opponent cannot continue to compete because of:

-illness
-k.o.
-injuries
-will
-time-out
-strength ...

In that situation there’s no other chance to award the other party the max. result which is possible at that particular point of time. This is the very basis of competition, don’t question that. If you say fair think of the spirit of sports. The opponent has to be treated in a fair way as well. Not playing means losing everything except for fixed acquired goal like no losing possibility.

Sorry, it might sound a bit clumsy at certain points but it would be easier to say in my mother tongue. ;)