Computers were demolishing analyses way before they became God (see e.g. here), but latest at ELO 3000 or so it became humiliating. 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.
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.
No. This doesn't happen. Why would it? There is nothing to be gained by this.
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. The algebraic notation is probably a bigger selling point than the computer checking.
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.
He has written an excellent book with the slightly misleading title "John Nunn's Chess Course". 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.
A 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.
In chapter 2 "Misunderstood Genius" he analyses two previously analysed Lasker games. At the start of the second he says:
This time the references are to Why Lasker Matters by Soltis (Batsford 2005) and Emanuel Lasker Games 1904-1940 by Soloviov (Chess Stars 1998).
After a short hatchet job he concludes:
This example provides an interesting case study. The games of the great historical masters are often treated poorly by modern annotators, but rarely does one see such an extreme case. 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. Soltis and Soloviov both evaluated equal positions as much better or even winning for Black, while when they thought it was equal, White was actually winning.
He goes on:
Annotators often seem to have a particular narrative in their minds (often dictated by the consensus view of previous annotators) and believe that at a certain point White is better and at another point Black is better. Then the analysis is twisted to fit the narrative rather then the other way round.