Assume it's a casual game. Assume no prize money or rating change.
Winning over the board massively, but get flagged just barely.
vs
Losing on the board big time, but win on time just barely.
If you're losing on time, you can work on time management. If you're just losing, the clock's only going to help you so much.
Losing but win on time
No contest here.
Winning 99% of the game and then losing either to the clock or else to a blunder is a lot better than only winning because of the clock or of an opponent's obvious blunder.
Better in the long-term, I mean. Eventually and over time, sustained better play will always gain you better results. Having better luck in a single game is temporary and illusion or delusion based.
I prefer to win. Chess is about winning. There's no value in a material advantage, if it can't be used.
If you're going into a chess game hoping to win on time, are you really playing chess?
Alekhine: „The fact that a player is very short of time is, to my mind, as little to be considered as an excuse as, for instance, the statement of the law-breaker that he was drunk at the moment he committed the crime.“
IMHO, there's nothing more frustrating than having a mate-in-one or mate-in-two on the board and losing on time. If I'm getting crushed I normally just resign anyway, even if I'm winning on time.
