My weird approach against the Sicilian Defence

I recently played a game against a 13 year old prodigy, who played the Sicilian Defence as Black.

I always disliked the Sicilian as Black, as I believe the opening actually creates a backward Queen's pawn which I see as a weakness. In playing this game as White, I managed to destabilize the Queen side pawns and attack the King side. The King side attack turned out to be decisive, but I also had some Queen side chances, which should not be the case in the Sicilian for White as I understand the theory behind it.

Here is the game:

Couldn't Black play 21. ...Qxd5 winning a piece?

Since when is 1405 at age 13 enough to be a prodigy? Anyway, here's something about exchanging on c6 in the Sicilian, which you did twice: it's sometimes okay, sometimes bad. The reason is that having a pawn on c6 makes it much easier for Black to play ...d5. However, if ...d5 can be stopped, then the exchange is justified.

For example, 11. Nxc6 was just fine because after 11...bxc6, it's very hard for Black to play ...d5. White now has a standard kingside attack in the cards, and Black's ideal queenside structure with pawns on a6 and b5 has been permanently destroyed. Black's compensation is a solid center with a potential ...d5 break that would shatter White's position.

On the other hand, 13. Bxc6 is a no-no. ...d5 will be easy to play and when it happens, Black's position will be better.

In addition, you missed 20. Qxc6 and your opponent missed 21...Qxd5.

Thank you very much. The quality of players and analyses like this are 2 of the reasons I will probably stay with chess.com.