I wonder about White having something in such cases; here are a couple of examples I’m aware of (which were given as equal in ECO):

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 O-O 8. Nge2 Nbd7 9. O-O Nb6 10. Bb3 c6 (P. Wolff-Dreev).  Wolff's Informant notes had White as slightly better only after 11. Re1 Bf5?!.

1. e4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Be3 c6 8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nbd7 10. O-O Nb6 11. Bb3 Nbd5 12. Ne5 Be6 13. Bg5 Re8 14. Re1 Qa5 (Velimirovic-Uhlmann).  Incidentally that game was annotated in Uhlmann’s "Ein Leben lang Französisch."  A version of this with h3 added for White (as in h3 + Bg5 rather than Be3 + Bg5) can arise from the Petroff (and was cited as leading to equality by Yusupov).  

For what it's worth, the author of the Yearbook survey (GM Alexander Finkel) commented to the effect that 3...d5 4. ed ed 5. d4 is easier to handle for White but objectively fine for Black. 

I was reminded of some old stuff from the Closed Sicilian starting with e.g. 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 e6 5. Nge2 d5 6. ed ed 7. d4 (transposition is indeed possible).

On the different matter of the c4 Exchange French and ...Nc6 being the only way to equalize, I'm not sure how to interpret that claim exactly, but it any case it strikes me as probably contrary to the usual understanding.

I think 0-1 is morel likely than 1-0. This is just better structure for black and easier to play.
In fact in chesstempo online database after 7.0-0 0-0 there are 7 games with 2500+ELO players (both sides) and there are 5 draws and two 0-1's.

I think those IQP positions are in practice easier to play for IQP side. It's similar to e3 variation in QGD and to exchange french. It's always a lo of counterplay and tricks. Usually white can't even go Re1 because of Ne4 possibilities.
But ok, if that's what white want I would take black every game.

But ok white is equal there because of N on c3 (with pawn on c3 it would be better for black already as is in the case in exchange French when the only equalizing line vs c4 variation is Nc6). Still imo it's easier to make a mistake with white. I would expect to win more games from black side vs players of my strength from that position.

I analysed 3..d5 a bit and I struggle to find any way to even symbolic + for white. I can't wait for someone to play it vs Adams or Carlsen for them to show me what white can possibly get there. 
Black just goes Nf6, Be7, 0-0, Nc6 and start thinking later. You can't take d5 by means of Bg5-f6 as always something is hanging (b2, c3) and white runs out of useful moves soon while this structure (the IQP with e pawn missing instead of c pawn missing) is fundamentally good for IQP side.

The line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 isn´t exactly new, even at a high level. See for example the game Carlsen-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2009.

It has been advocated for White in the book "Dangerous Weapons: Anti-Sicilians". My own experience is very positive. It helps if you are able to play different structures like the open Sicilian or a King´s Indian Attack.

Just came across this in Leonard Barden's column http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/07/chess-magnus-carlsen-london-classicin the Guardian newspaper:

Quote:


Does anyone know anything about this? Sorry if this has been discussed in a previous thread but rather difficult to do a google advanced search on "positions".