Anyone care to lend analysis...

In Fred Reinfeld's 1950's 'Complete Chess Course' he gives this line in the Italian Game as a definite win for White. Were the computer moves that I tacked on faulty... or how does White win after material is exchanged and it's Q and piece vs. 2 Rooks and piece?

I guess it's not terribly important... but it just makes me want to know what I'm missing, if there is a clear-cut answer...

Thanks!

(the same hasty computer check I did yielded a draw...)

what is this

The real test of this line is Bxc3 d5 Ne5 though.

I thought the mainline was 10. Qb3 (not 10. Ba3)?

Chessmicky, thanks! I didn't think I was going to get any comments at all. I didn't realize the line was totally obsolete, but that wasn't really the issue; I just figured if Reinfeld pronounced something as definitely winning, there must be a definite continuation, and I wasn't sure what it was. 

blueemu wrote:

I thought the mainline was 10. Qb3 (not 10. Ba3)?

It is, but Ba3 is better. Qb3 d5! Bxd5 0-0 and the position is equal

Bf6 is more accurate and simply better for Black

It's a matter of opinion, but it's easier to show White has absolutely nothing after Ne5

I like Black in the resulting endgame, and I think that the Queen comes to d6. I don't see why nobody plays Black here...

Because no one plays White there..

chessmicky, do you know of any way for White to win if Black did 13...Qb8, or was Reinfeld wrong?

Just a guess:

RxB PxR

Ne5, but it looks drawish.

Thanks, I feel better knowing that! It wasn't that I needed to understand it because I thought it would happen in games, I just wanted to understand the concepts...