Sorry, I did not understand that this was an argument. I will happily yield as we definitely agree on what I know understand that you want me to say: It was definitely possible for Mihail to have used more sources for the update and this could and probably would have made the book better.
For the first edition we were talking about a few serious omissions, especially the Belgrade Gambit and 7.Qb3 in the Evans Gambit. This was not great. We repaired these for the reprint, but it was still a reprint. Yes, I admit I called it for the 2nd edition to sell more copies. At least I did not write "The Most Important Opening Book" on the cover

.
In volume 2 we are talking about 8.Nd2 in the Ponziani, only played by 2200 guys. Could it have been covered, definitely yes, but it was far from obvious.
Some people thought this made the first volume bad and very few thanked us for putting the update on the website. Coincidently, and not because of this, we put the Spanish update on the website only and everyone was happy. Having worked with other publishers in my career, I know that they happily translate and reprint books they know are affluent with mistakes. I have always disliked this, but maybe it is the only way to do business? Or maybe just to get it right the first time around

.
To me BTOG is still a very inspirational book, but like Cox and others I would not take anything at face value.
About the 1997 book. If I mention a Bilguir book, do I have to include all opening books in the last 100 years? The logic is not that convincing.
Jacob Aagaard