Material vs Time (Clock)...

This is a game I played here not too long ago. I have the black pieces; ahead in material, I loss on time. I have not completely studied the game yet, although I will put down on paper what I was thinking during the game soon. Anyway, if there's anyone out there with a chess program that can help me analyze my game and see where I can improve, I would really love it.

I think I get in trouble with the black pieces a lot, although the score was 22 for white and 26 for black (ahead in material); unfortunately the score does not count if you run out of time.

the score? never heard of that before, lol

It does, but the game will definitley  not win itself. It's also important to get out of time pressure. Although having 1 pawn is usually enough to theroetically win the game, it can be difficult or annoying so you need to play just as well as you did to get the material advantage because then what would be the point of a material advantage if you couldn't win with it?

My main point of improvement on this game is 48....re3+.  IMHO, 48....re1# is stronger, but that's just me.

 I did miss that; guess I should of won. I was only seconds to losing the game. I had to make a move and fast. Like I said, I have not studied the game yet.

Other than missing mat1 [blunder], did you see any other mistakes? inaccuraces? Of course I could have played faster too so that I did not lose on time. Otherwise I felt good about the game (other than the blunder).

Thanks for pointing that out [move #48].

 You don't know how to count points? I never said that it mattered or that it counts. On the contrary, I did say it does not count...

"...unfortunately the score does not count if you run out of time." Hammerschlag

 yes

King's value = infinity

White's pieces value = 22

Black's pieces value = 26

Infinity + 22 = infinity

Infinity + 26 = infinity

Therefore, by mathematical justification, RainbowRising is proved correct :)

 Unfortunately I did not get check-mated. I loss on time.

The point-count system in chess is a rule-of-thumb thing to impress on players the benefits of material.  Weak players are less likely to permanently sac a pawn if they see that they will be down a point, so they hesitate or at least think before they do it.  The stronger you become the less you need such mnemonic devices to play--you can see whether or not the sac is worth it.  I have never used the system (I'm a Morphy fan; counting doesn't seem to help in his games) but I recognize it's value to some.  Just don't become addicted to a rule-of-thumb system; they all have their limitations.

To Hammerschlag

I have only looked at the game online in the time it takes to play through the moves.  I am sure that I could recommend other moves there, but it will take some time, and I don't know if I'm strong enough to point out mistakes or inaccuracies, just alternatives.  If that's OK with you, give me a few days and I'll have an answer (I'll do that for someone from Queens, my hometown--Forest Hills).  But do me a favor--look online the 27th (Tuesday) for a story to be posted by me about the Lowenthal-Morphy meeting in 1850.  I'm in the process of finishing it as we speak.  If you'll give me the hit, I'll give you the moves.  Fair enough?

 Sure, I love (Paul) Morphy games. Where online is it? Here?

I felt comfortable with the position of the game (how it was near the end); my problem happens in the middle when it gets really complicated and I end up slowing down too much and getting into time-trouble.

 Thank you for pointing that out. I do feel it helps me to know the "score" and helps my game; I don't have a problem with sacrificing material though. I'll sac a pawn no problem (Tal is my all time favorite - he said something to the point that he sacrificed his pawn because it was in the way - lol). I'm even willing to sacrifice the exchange if it's going to be of an advantage to me. Someday I might be able to not need it anymore to know how I'm doing in the game, but right now I am still learning.

To Hammerschlag

I believe that the story will be published here at chess.com.  I am still working this out, but it will be Tuesday, so I'll give you a head's up if that changes.  But be forewarned--this is mostly story, not chess.  And it's told from the point of view of Lowenthal, so be prepared for that, too.  But I think it is damn good, and I'm sure many on this site will like it.

I'll send a message as to when I'll have what I can come up with on your game.  You seem to more concerned with opening and early middle-game; am I correct here?  And I don't use computers to analyze a position, so what you'll be getting is human analysis, and please take it for just that--it will be human, and have human mistakes (of that, I am confident).  But hopefully it will help, if by nothing else than to open your eyes to practical alternatives (not that bizarre computer crap) and give you some good study material.  See ya Tuesday!

I don't know if I made it sound like it matters at other times but a loss is a loss. By checkmate, resignation, time, or default:it goes in the same column. I only stated that I was in the lead as far as material (so I did not let the time run out on purpose so I will not be mated). The score does not matter as a result of the game, however I do not think you can say it does not completly matter. You can be in the lead of a marathon but if you run out of energy before you cross the finish line and do not make it you still will not win. I get that. But I never said that the score matters at other times; you just took it that way. Now if I did say that, then...