The point about that line is (somewhat like the Bb5 Sicilian lines) it limits Blacks chances for active play - by this I believe White reduces his chance of losing, although he may also reduce his statistical chance of winning. Still I think Leko is telling a bit of a lie to say it is equal (a bit like Kasparov when he didnt fancy Bb5+ and said players only play this for a draw) - players normally say this when they are a little annoyed by there opponents opening choice. White still has an edge, but only a very slight one, like the other ant-Sicilians I mentioned, the point is Blacks opportunity for active play has been limited.

photophore wrote on 12/17/06 at 10:17:00:


Sorry I didnt read the whole of your post, anything longer than 3 or 4 lines seems to escape my attention.

What you say here is of course correct - it is a trade-off really. Instead of the Svesh you have to be ready to play 2 possible anti-Sicilians:

1) the line with 3...e5 (recommended by Rogozenko but I know of very few players who like this as Black)
2) after 3...Nf6 4.Bb5! has a good reputation for White, but all is far from clear

Also - bear in mind that after 3...g6!? there is no longer a Maroczy possible after 4.d4, and the status of 4.Bb5 there doesnt convince me.

After writing and thinking about this I now begin to wonder - is avoiding the the Sveshnikov worth all of this? But it seems like there are times we all feel like doing this

3.Bb5 seems more accurate to reach your target.

On 3.Nc3 e6 and after 4.d4 cd 5.Nd4 Nf6 you have to forget about 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bf4 e5 8.Bg5 (Sviesnikov again) to play 6.Be2 (6...Bb4 7.00 would suit your style !) or 6.Bg5 with less analysed positions. Or you could play 4.d3!? ...