It's not just a matter of an occasional incorrect move in the analysis, as anybody can make such slips, rather it's a consistent and profound misassessment of the position throughout a large part of the game. The games of the great historical masters are often treated poorly by modern annotators, but rarely does one see such an extreme case. This example provides an interesting case study. This time the references are to Why Lasker Matters by Soltis (Batsford 2005) and Emanuel Lasker Games 1904-1940 by Soloviov (Chess Stars 1998). In chapter 2 " Misunderstood Genius" he analyses two previously analysed Lasker games. It seems to really be an examination of some of Emanuel Lasker's games with a more marketable title, but maybe I'm just being cynical.Ī big part of what he does in the book is tear apart the analyses of various annotators, reasonably modern so as not to be too unfair, and name and shame. He has written an excellent book with the slightly misleading title " John Nunn's Chess Course". Of the authors who make a point of using extensive computer checking GM Dr John Nunn comes the closest to doing what you seem to want but for individual games rather than whole books. The algebraic notation is probably a bigger selling point than the computer checking. What does happen with a few old books with good reputations that were written using descriptive notation is that a new edition is brought out with computer checking and corrections and translation into algebraic notation.
Why would it? There is nothing to be gained by this. Do you know instances of chess books explicitly rewritten years later by the same author, this time with computer-analysis aid? Preferably with the author telling the amount of errors found.