I play the Svesh only from White side , so I feel a bit frustrated with it ( my style is rather wild )
Now , when one has to win imperatively , it's not so easy than with Najdorf 6 Bg5
Now , there are many offbeat lines , that are not all unsound
But it needs to study it more thoroughly , and to be somewhat more creative
Now , I hold good hope that White will find new critical lines

Pelletier has also called the Sveshnikov boring (or something similar).

The Sveshnikov has a rather narrow tree of variations. The pawn structure is similar in most lines. gxf6 is basically the only great modification. Most other openings/variations have a much wider selection of pawn structures (for both sides). When switching from the Sveshnikov, I was relieved not to have pawns on a6, b5, d6, e5 in every game. On the other hand, I think there are few other lines that offer black this great activity from the opening and black seems to be fine in every line.

---

No problems modifying for me. Button in the top right corner.

One more remark. I don't think Nd5 before Bxf6 is that different to other lines. Contrary to the elite (0-0/Bg5) I prefered to play early Rb8 (0-0/Rb8) to stop the a4 plan. Worked fine in my games (at my levels). I had more difficulties with the exf5/c3 line. For me, that was the most challenging line, strategically.

Boring is a subjective term. Radjabov, Krasenkov and many others have been happy to play it all their lives.

What they mean is that it’s strategically limited (I think Short used this phrase also). In a sense this is true – virtually always White goes for the light squares and d5; Black goes for the black squares. But within that broad context there’s a pretty wide range of ideas.

White has a lot more sharp ideas in 9 Nd5 than in Adorjan’s day – see Korneev-Devereaux (and many other games in this line, eg Pitl-Dworakowska from Gausdal). Generally it’s true though that the wild material imbalances which were typical of the Svesh in the 70’s are no longer common – largely because they all turned out to be good for Black.

The Sveshnikov is an incredible phenomenon – no opening was so vilified for so long and is now so accepted at the top level. For that reason alone it’s got a lot to teach us.

e6/d6 more elegant? I suppose I would agree; more visual, certainly. The Svesh is about function rather than elegance, on the whole.

The Svesh is certainly dynamic in the sense that Black always needs to rely upon his activity. Sharp – well like all openings it has its sharp variations and its not-so-sharp ones. I would say it has a higher percentage of sharp ones than most, but perhaps not as high as the Dragon or Najdorf.

I just got this today.  I like it quite a bit, though I've just scratched the surface.

IM Cox what do you say to the following arguments:

Nigel Short said in a Chessbase.com article once that the Sveshnikov was boring.

Delchev/Semkov mention in their book that the Svesh is poor in strategic ideas, and boring to play over a long period of time.

Andras Adorjan says he became fed up after facing the 5th guy playing 9.Nd5, when all his romantic ideas went up in smoke...

Even Sammalvuo called the e6/d6 structure "more elegant" than the d6/e5 structure in his English Attack book. (I know its a little different here, but still...)

Am I reading into this too much, or do they have a point? I've always viewed the Svesh as sharp and dynamic...

Yep, when you are new to an opening it is extremely helpful to know why the main line is the main line and not some other logical looking continuation.

You'd have to ask Bill Gates. But I imagine 1 e4 is one word.

Absolutely. Rogozenko's book is outstanding in the matter of analysis. I found one definite analytical miss and about another two places where I felt it possible to disagree with him, which is an incredibly low amount in this silicon age. However, I feel, and more to the point Everyman feels, that there is scope for a more low-level guide, and of course theory moves on. I tried to cover the non-critical lines more than he does; at club level these are commoner than at Rogozenko's, to put it mildly.

As to the pages I am told Everyman reluctantly allowed it to pass after some caustic observations I may have allowed myself to make on the (extensive) pruning they had to do to the 1d4 book to reduce it from the lamentable sprawling state it was submitted in. To my surprise Svesh was 70,000 words and 1 d4 originally 80,000. I had thought the difference would be more.