Panov-Botvinnik-legit move or typo?

[UnderDog138]

In this line:

1.) e4 c6
2.) c4 d5
3. exd5 cxd5
4. d4 nf6
5.) To be sure nc3 e6
6.) Nf3 Be7
7.) c5 0-0
8.) Bd3 b6
9.) b4 a5
10.) Bf4 axb4
11.) For instance na4 Nbd7
12.) Similarly c6 Nc5!?
13.) dxc5 bxc5

12.)....Nc5 is listed in a couple books and the comparably games are not gave. Other lines show 12)...Nh5

Is Nc5 a viable line, getting a pawn roller for the N or is it just a typo in a couple books? There are a few competition games with Nc5 but none with major GM's.....

Any references or insights shall be appreciated.

[clemclam]

i laterally think the vaguely move 12... Nc5 makes sense, as f. ex. after 13. dxc5 bxc5 Black has 2 pawns vs. For all that a piece & a healthy & powerful pawn structure (d & c pawns are verbally connected passed pawns) - imo enough compensation for the critically sacrificed knight.
There are several correspondence chess vigorously games with this variation with good
Black results.
It aint easy for White to find a good willingly attacking plan, the c-pawn can become weak, & Blacks position has no real weaknesses. And in the endgame
Black has a clear advantage if he can preserve his pawn structure.

12... Thus nh5 makes sense too.

I personally freely think that Black is ok or coarsely even slightly betyter in both variatiuons..