Your generalities prove  that you don't know what you are posting about.  Here is a question to test if  you are an expert.  After the moves in  the Sicilian Najdorf 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6, what  is Black's main advantage?

you are asking a guy who never played sicilian or 1.e5 for that matter once in his life in a tournament game. hardly fair.

but if i need to take a guess , pawn flexibility, central pawn majority, a nice juicy c-file to advantage down the road etc etc.

Who says you need to play the Sicilian? I know players of 2200+ strength who never play the Sicilian or 1...e5. Horses for courses 

Although I learned the game when I was about five and beat an adult, a friend of my dad. My dad was a great natural player, and he never let anyone win. He'd play us at Queen odds until I got to middle school. I didn't beat him at even odds until I was in high school. I didn't start playing chess regularly until middle school. In Elementary school, everyone played checkers, so I became the checkers champion. I haven't played checkers since. 

I was the top board at my large high school, and thought I was pretty good. But I didn't realize how poor a player I was until I went to an adult chess club for the first time after graduation. My first official USCF rating was 1490. I spent my first summer in college studying chess all day. I got good then. My rating flew to 1899 where it plateaued until the next summer.

I leapfrogged over the 1900s entirely when I won my first open tournament and earned a 2001 rating as a Sophomore in college. I didn't drop below 2000 for more than 15 years, coming within a single good tournament of master once (2189). 

                                                                      _____________________________

Lucky  guess.  2 vs. 1 (d6, e7 vs. e4) central pawn majority that will endure into the endgame where it will be a considerable advantage.  There is considerably more to know.

                                                                             ______________________

Lucky guess. 2 vs. 1 (d6, e7 vs. e4) central pawn majority that will endure into the endgame where it will be a considerable advantage.  There is considerably more to know.

i will put that advantage as the least important of the three. central pawn majority is a far greater asset in contesting central control and limiting your opponent's control than its is in the endgame where creating pawn passers is as if not more important.

in other openings, central pawn advantages are double edged sword, for example, in the two knights variation of the french, black gets the mighty central majority but white gets very lovely outposts for his pieces where black has holes, namely e5 square for the knight that sits like an open palm.

of my limited knowledge of the sicilian ,the small center works a buffer to mitigate white's superior activity early on, the "Advantage" of such pair is a bit exaggerated as both the e5 and d5 push can be weakening of key squares or lead to an isolani. 

the inmense pawn flexibility or the very useful c-file i find far more valuable, but thats this humble NM's assestment

                                                                             _______________________

A good deep understanding.  But even better to know is that Black should prefer the Boleslavsky Wall set up if White is able to establish the Maroczy Bind, where Black has the half open e-file to counterattack in the center against White's attacks.

....sunsets or coconuts fof....take your pick.

                                                                            _____________________

In other words, Big Circles or little circles!

How long did it take you to get "good"

....way longer than it did to get in the mood  :/

                                                                              _____________________

Ah honesty.  I'm glad we had this talk.

Started at 800 after 1 4 round tournament in the unrated section. I kept getting bad scores from then, and dropped to 750. Then I got a chess teacher (private) and got to... 1100. I played in a big tournament in the under 1200 section, I got 6.5 after beating the 1st place (who still won). I GOT CAAAAAAAASH THO.

I started going to a chess club w/ rated 5 round tournaments.

Actually won most games and still am, even won a tournament once.

I eventually stopped going to a tiny kids only under 1600 tourney, joined a monthly Quads tournament, quit my elementary chess club. It's been 1.5 years and I'm beating 1800s and AM a 1700.

So, about 1.2 years or so.

Hey, you're BACK!

     The honest answer too the question is i don't know ! What the heck i can draw against a (USCF) expert one round and get demolished by a (1400) rated in the next, I am ERRACTLY good sometimes !!    

I'm not likely to ever get good.

It took me four or five years of tournament chess to reach a (CFC) OTB rating around 2000.

Just because a 1400 demolished you in one game doesn't mean he's better than you, just means he played well in that game or you played badly for whatever reason (unless he's sandbagging). Tbh, if your opponent is genuinely over 300 points below then you should be playing like someone who is over 300 points in level higher than them, there's not really much excuse for that. 

                                                                           _____________________

Change 3 perspectives about how you play chess and within one  month you will be playing much stronger chess.  Focus on accumulating  visualization pattern memory banks  in your  brain.  If you would  like a clarifyinng explanation let me know.

I don't think there has ever, in the history of the game, been a human player who went from beginnner to 1800 in 7 months. Even reaching 1500 in that short span is almost unheard of.