What typical endgames do you expect? If I take of the pieces and play it out against rybka, then I don't notice any clean advantage for white. So I guess white needs to let that bishop pair work very hard but i don't see obvious plans for the white bishops.
Ulfie: a solid Svesnikov alternative?
Sort:
7. Nd6+ Bxd6 8. Qxd6 Qe7 9. Qxe7 Kxe7 10. Be3 d6 is the main line I found after 6...h6, with white scoring nearly 60%. Black loses the dark square bishop and has a lasting weakness on d6, but it IS playable. However, I would strongly prefer to play white.
Going a little further in my database, it seems like play will focus on the center with black trying to play ...d5 and white attempting to prevent it. It doesn't appear to be a one-sided game by any means but, again, I would rather play white.
Why play the Sicilian if all you want to do is grovel for a draw?
Thanks DigitalStrike! So it seems d6 and d5 are the squares to focus on.
@RathminesRampager well I don't really want to grovel for a draw, draws are so rare at my level and unrelated to the opening anyway. I do love to grovel for a win however, with whatever opening, preferably from quite queenless positions that look a bit worse on first sight. Practice shows me that these kind of positions are typically underestimated and that both sides have changes, to quote Lasker. Take 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 3.de5 de5: 4.Qe8: for example, I think there is a lot of play left and black is actually not bad at all.
At first glance, this appears to be a worse version of the Lowenthal variation. It accepts a permanently inferior pawn structure (both the backwards d-pawn and giving up the two Bishops) but without any of the dynamic
counterplay potential.
Perhaps there are more resources available than meets the eye, but compared to the Lowenthal, White seems to have a stable positional advantage with little to worry about.
Looking at your mainline, this looks natural to me:
Thanks! that comparison is enlightening. Apparently Ulf Andersson and Lakdawala play the variation successfully. Given Ulf's style I assume the black position should have certain positional merits, as he is typically not really going for activity 
Perhaps black's position is too passive to play d5 and it is more about building a fortress and focusing on weak squares, something like 13. ... Nh5 perhaps or taking away the white squares at the queen's side? I don't know, but it seems that is probably pretty hard to play with black without understanding the right positional motives?
I thought about this more, and I imagine there are some tricky Sveshnikov related ideas that can be applied. Here's one:
There may be other ideas as well, but this one jumped out while I was eating lunch, so I thought I'd share.
Well, all these valid arguments against black's case made me very curious and decide to actually buy the entire move to move book on the Svesnikov to figure out what is going on here.
In his move to move book on the Svesnikov Lakdawala wrote a chapter on an alternative system: the Ulfie (named after Ulf Andersson). In this opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd4: 4.Pd4: e5 5.Pdb5 h6 (aka Haberditz variation of the Pelikan-Lasker) black plays h6 instead of the Svesnikov's d6 . White typically exchanges queens and black loses the right to castle. However, in true Andersson style this queenless middlegame seems to be very playable.
I do really love this kind of simplified middle game, I have no doubt that white is a bit betterhere, but it seems to me that blacks position is both pretty solid and there is still a lot of play left: h6 avoids the pin, black has the right bishop and the hole on d5 doesn't have terrible consequences. But hey, I am just a 1650 OTB patzer so I am curious what kind of positional ideas you guys have about this position? So for example: can white use the black squares, is all the action going to be on the queenside or are we bound to go for certain typical endgames?