The only win i consider a "real" win is if you click the play now option so you can't change the settings and play at normal speed.
Why? Surely a win is a win. Okay, so non-standard settings can make a game easier (they can also make it much harder - check out the Ironman challenge for an example). But I don't see why a player shouldn't play at higher difficulty levels to make games on non-standard settings more challenging, and still consider it a 'real' win when they achieve victory. Or, equally, to use non-standard settings to help them adjust to a higher level.
Of course it's more satisfying to win tougher games. But playing with, say, 10 civs instead of 8 hardly constitutes cheating, does it?
Sure, if someone comes on here boasting of how they can easily beat deity, suggesting that they're some kind of expert when they're really just setting the game up to make it easier, you can justly point out that they haven't tested themselves against the toughest challenge that cIV has to offer. But, by the same token, if you haven't won a conquest-only quick-speed deity continents with raging barbs, always war, no city razing and the AI civs paired off into teams, then you haven't done so either.
I just don't understand why a game that comes with so many custom options should be played on standard settings or else not considered 'real'.
(Incidentally, if anyone has ever beaten the settings I mentioned, then you are truly a godlike player to whom I bow down in awed worship. As long as you didn't cheat by giving yourself a Modern Armour in the ancient era...).