Against this 1900.
Not against other 1900 players. As soon as they see Bd3 that is their first clue something is on the mind of thei 1400 rated player. No way should he miss a possible attack on h7 with the King Knight missing and he acts accordingly.
No way should a player get to 1900+ and get caught by the attack you mention. If they do it should happen because they were forced into that position to avoid another threat. This works on players below 1600 and risky with 1500 rated players.
OP- Your chess playing is not too bad, it is only small things that you need to fix. Using the hpawn as a base for the bishop and knight attack is not quite the way you should be playing. The bishop attack he just ignored and the knight attack he made you retreat the piece.
My advice would be to play through some Paul Morphy games and watch the way (and time) that he uses the g4 and h4 advance.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1293213
Leaving an uncastled king in the center of the board is no time that you should be pushing forward, unless your opponent has a positional weakness that you can exploit very quickly.
OP- Your chess playing is not too bad, it is only small things that you need to fix. Using the hpawn as a base for the bishop attack is not quite the way you should be playing. My advice would be to play through some Paul Morphy games and watch the way (and time) that he uses the g4 and h4 advance.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1293213
Leaving an uncastled king in the center of the board is no time that you should be pushing forward, unless your opponent has a positional weakness that you can exploit very quickly.
There are situations that you can clearly leave an uncastled king in the middle of the board. For a beginner they should check... yes watch out for checks(that word came up so i had to talk about it) . Check to see if the king is any danger of attack. This is for more advanced players. His will got ahead of his skill. He playing from instinct but not sure what his instinct is telling him.
He had the idea of the positional weakness early in the game which i am talking about. And because black had little mobility which is rare against a 1900 rated player he did not have to rush at all to attack any weakness but take time to deliver a strong blow that would either force a resign or an unstoppable crushing End Game.
Thank you everyone :) I really appreciate this. I read every single comment and understand my mistake(s).
i thing the worst move was 17.Bc2.i think you should have played 17.a3 and then 18.Bc2
Against this 1900.
Not against other 1900 players. As soon as they see Bd3 that is their first clue something is on the mind of thei 1400 rated player. No way should he miss a possible attack on h7 with the King Knight missing and he acts accordingly.
No way should a player get to 1900+ and get caught by the attack you mention. If they do it should happen because they were forced into that position to avoid another threat. This works on players below 1600 and risky with 1500 rated players.
The point isn't the Bxh7. The point is that if black plays moves like h6 to defend Bxh7, then he falls even further behind in development, his king is stuck in the center, he still has the bad c8 bishop, and white should have a winning advantage.
There isn't any risk involved. The sacrifice is entirely sound, and even if black defends against the sacrifice he is in major trouble (and has no winning chances ever), so I don't know what you mean by it works on 1600 players and is risky on 1500+ players.
Thank you everyone :) I really appreciate this. I read every single comment and understand my mistake(s).
Was that game from a Team Match or Open Seek?
I would think there would also be various other factors that affect the how fast and how much effort. seems to me it would also be rather difficult to precisely measure "effort".
i mean if one person exists in some heavenly environment, superb conditions and another finds himself in a hell of sorts, is it appropriate to call a person "talented" for being lucky enough to have fantastic living/training conditions?
additionally, if you were to compare two people in regards to these things, rate of progress efficiency, then obviously issues of motivation/goals come into the picture. one person may have much more focused motivation, clear goals, while the other person isn't on so clear of a path, meandering about, his goals hazy, shifting, constantly being redefined and entirely different from the other persons. if this is the case, then there's not much basis for any comparison. all such things would have to be controlled for, I mean if you actually were trying to obtain some sort of accurate assessment of such nebulous things.
The NBA, NFL, NHl and MLB prove you wrong. Many of them grew up under poor conditions. Even can use terms like the hood and ghetto areas to nail my point here. If you have talent it is not determined if you come from a well to do family.
How hard you work. That come from home training. 90% of that is taught in some form of the other. I have see people that have money put little effort in and get a gold rattle but in the end they fall on their face as they took short cuts. And people that live in conditions that they only way they are getting out of it is unless they work at it and have very little talent.
No doubt talent speeds things up. And you can come close or equal to the person who has raw talent if you work at and be patient and persistent. Most of the time you will have to ignore family and or friends who say you can not do it.
I thought i played okay but he just tore me out and i kept asking how to get better at chess and he kept saying i will never get better its all about raw talent
Some of those who have disagreed with me before on these forums know that I'm not a believer in "talent", certainly not "raw talent" being a necessity for getting better.
I started as an 1100 player when I first began playing online, in yahoo chess. I remember getting torn apart by a 1300 player who said something similar to me--that I will never get better and I should "try checkers" instead.
Now I'm a 2000+ player, and I got here without a single ounce of this mysterious "talent" that some people say is required to improve. And my skill level will continue to rise with more experience and study--which are, in my firm opinion, the only two ingredients required to get better.
Looking at your comments during the game, I can tell you have a good grasp of how certain moves can improve your position. You also have an eye on creating weaknesses in your opponents position. You are thinking the correct way. You just forgot about King Safety, and your piece placement could have been better. But those things will come in time. If you keep at it, you'll get to the 2000+ level. I have no doubts about it.
Keep at it! Best of luck!
Sounds famaliar but different words.
I thought i played okay but he just tore me out and i kept asking how to get better at chess and he kept saying i will never get better its all about raw talent
Read books, and watch me own up here thats mz advice to get better
If you were a GM, that opinion would be a whole lot firmer. 
First of all, the game tells you are not familiar with basic opening principles. So what do you expect? 
Uh-oh, "basic opening principles" (whatever that might mean)...
andy
is such a barney
Krigar
is such a cigar
You do not want to make him angry.
Do you know what happen to the last person that made him angry?
Do you know what happen to the last person that made him angry?
No-one knows. All they ever found was his belt buckle. And IT was on the roof.
Chess.com thinks e5 Ng4 was good in that game, but still gives a plus 2 advantage and black's position looks resignable.