Is the Sicilian meant for chess experts only?

It seems to me its like this.  Against the King pawn you play 1...e5 when you don't want to lose, you play 1..c6 when all you need is a draw and you play 1...c5 when you must win.

This is the nature of the Sicilian, its either kill or be killed.  Black has in theory at least in the open Sicilian better pawns going into the endgame, a two v one central advantage, also the chance of a minority attack.  White in theory usually has a lead in development (if black pushes pawns like in the Najdorf), more space and good attacking chances.  In the Dragon its a trade off, black gets better pawns but a hopelessly weak d5 square.  Its this double edged quality that I suspect appeals to Sicilian players and other types of riverboat gamblers.

I would also be very interested in some clarification of this "forced endgame advantage", as it is not something of which I've been previously aware. 

@robbie_1969: Here's an example of a line in the Caro-Kann where Black plays perfectly according to theory and yet White gets a slight endgame advantage.

According to theory? actually there are to my knowledge two perspectives here, a white queen side majority which is supposed to confer on the owner a slight advantage and the advanced h pawn which just may become a liability for white and a target for black. Although this is a thread about the Sicilian and i don't want to derail it, there are certain things that cannot go left unsaid.

white king is dancing about like Nicki Minaj.

Here is another win with the Sicilian by "Not an Expert". My opponent (name changed) used the Smith-Morra Gambit in this one.

umm Lou thats not the Smith Morra but you knew that right.

Explorer smoller man! its just a dumb a$$ database!  Da Smith Morra gambit needs to actually be a gambit where white gives up the c pawn for rapid development.  I really wonder if you knew that Lou, clearly you must be some kind of Sicilian expert masquerading as a novice.

Do you need to be a mechanic to know when you have a flat tyre?  No? well then lets be reasonable

As far as I know, nobody is in charge of chess definitions. My not-very-authoritative impression is that Smith-Morra usually refers to 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 etc. It isn't that surprising if software simpifies opening definitions. A proper job would, I think, require a complicated consideration of transpositional possibilities.

chess dot com attempts to dumb everything down including apparently even the Smith Morra gambit! Look at the nav bar, its like something you get in playschool for the under fives.  Correspondence chess is dumbed down to daily chess, blitz chess is dumbed down to speed chess, my gaaaaaawd give the public some credit!

Lol, an excellent suggestion!