What is the right idea here?

I often find myself in these positions. I'm an aggressive player, and against hedgehog or hippo positions or otherwise passive positions i often hang myself. My opponent let me develop to where ever i wanted, i have a small space advantge, I dont know if i want to commit to castling first because i can see how he can easily swing his attack to the other side of the board, and i'd essentially be telliing him what to focus on, i thought about moving my rooks to the middle but then i lose the right to castle, i thought about pushing a pawn for space but again that requires a commitment to castle on the opposite side of the board, i dont see any advantages to play for or focus on, or pieces to improve, so what is the right strategy in these intances when your opponent leaves it up to you?

PS I did end up winning this game, i ended up playing 10.Nxg5 Bxg5 11.Bxg5 Qxg5 12.h4 Qxg2 13.O-O-O

sacing the pawn to try to trap his queen; gathering my pieces while while he was still undeveloped, but i remember being taught "to take is a mistake" so i am sure there must be better ideas. What do you think?

i think d5 wins a pawn.

I usually play for principles when I can't find a move that gives me either an instant advantage, or one I see paying off in the next move or 2...you have to sort of go through a checklist of principles to help you. I don't have the whole thing prepared as if it is a set of default fail safes that have an order of priority. They could change due to the position.

If your opponent isn't really making any mistakes, all you can really do is keep trying to gain small advantages, until you either can exploit one directly into a bigger advantage or your opponent has too many small disadvantages that they can't compensate for them all and falls into a position of a "one sided zugzwang". Zugzwang occurs when neither player can make a move without creating a weakness that is worse than any they already have.

In the above position I would do the following :

Inspite of the fact that, it is generally a mistake to take, keep in mind that if you can trade your bishop for a knight in a closed game, it gives you an advantage in mobility, increasing your attacking and defensive ability. If the recapture is with a pawn, causing your opponent to have a doubled pawn is like the equivalent of him losing a pawn. Based on this idea I would play Bg5...if he recaptures with the pawn, it weakens his king side castle structure and in equivalence, loses a pawn. If he recaptures with the bishop ( the better choice) , you can simply recapture his bishop with your knight on f3. He'd recapture with his queen. This would force you to have to castle king side. In my opinion, the better of the 2 options for castling. Your queenside pawns are weakened in the center, as it pretains to castling.

In doing all of this, though you didn't really seem to gain anything, you didn't really lose anything either. This is often the key at critical stages. It isn't necessarily finding a killer 5 move tactical combination, but making safe, smart moves that don't forfeit your initiative. It could literally be the only advantage that you have.

So after all of this, you have managed to simplify the position (this is good and safe, it is easier to find an advantage and not get yourself into a mess in a simplified position), castle saftely, not lose any material, positional advantage,  and get rid of 2 of his better attackers to your king. Often, especially in the early stages of a game, before your development is complete, the knights and bishops pose the greatest danger to you. They are usually most mobile earlier, work well together and in the end, if one is lost, it isn't insurmountable to equalize or win afterward.

After you castle, he has no devistating reply. He must develop somehow to create anything with his initiative for long term strategy. This move will not only tell you a lot about his plans, but his skill level and what you need to most likely prepare for down the road. I would expect a response of castling in reply. If so, the knight on d2 if moved to f3 would suddenly attack his queen, be placed in an optimal defensive square for your kingside and have some central control. This forced move of his queen gives you back the initiative and an opportunity to look for weaknesses in his position.

Furthermore, you have such good central control and queenside control with your wall of pawns, I wouldn't move them prematurely. Remember, pawn moves are more permanent. Make him give you a good reason to move them, otherwise, if it isn't broke, don't try to fix it. In the mean time look for tactical combinations to further weaken his kingside position. Don't be too agressive, just create a threat and try to turn it into a weakness and maintain the pressure. Who, knows, the guy might resign, or begin prematurely trying to create something that isn't there.

I realize I am not a master, but I can remember being where you are at and not having the first clue. I would make bad trades based on my personal preference for knights, or my desire to try a pawn march that would fail. I hope this is in some way helpful. Good luck in the future.

Thank you nameno1had  I appreciate everything you shared. And it's good advice! I was concerned about him actually taking with the pawn and opening the H file for his rook, because i agree castling kingside whould be better for the reason you mentioned, but if he took with the pawn i definetely would not have castled kingside. Worried about him castling queenside and having the open h file to double up his rooks on. So for that reason i did take but with the knight, if for no other reason than to find out what he intended to do, not considering it could be worth more in this position. I like the idea of the one sided Zugzwang, if im listening correctly your saying that even in the very early stage of a game like this that if i can play to find enough small advantages before liquidating the pieces then in the simplified position he'd be stuck in the Zugzwang... I like this idea! It is something to look for :) This is how the game ended i think if my opponent played a little more accurately i would have been stuck with a losing position. He left me with a tactic and i found it and i am proud of that, but i think if he played a little less agressively in the middle he could have won pretty easily. Let me know if you agree

Thank you FirebrandX I did think of Rd1 "improving a piece" but i chickened out worried about Nxh3 its the kind of move i would play; a piece sac gaining a weak kingside hopefully followed up with a strong attack, but your probably right, he wouldnt have gotten compensation for the knight... but are we sure?