That is some gross arrogance on full display right there. If you're as good as me, surely you've read all these books. Any other books... flawed in ways you should be ashamed of.
The shard language. The GoF wanted that shared language, but people missed the ideal behind it and thought it was a cookbook instead.
The GoF draws from A Pattern Language ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195019199/ ) and I believe does a better job at communicating what Patterns should be - a common language and broad brush strokes of solving common problems (though almost always require some tweaking to make it fit just right).
Also, he gives "more of a language reference" as a reason for not reading Stroutstrup's C++ book. Doesn't the same apply to K&R?
In 2016, however, I think that a lot of people would have read CLRS, even if they haven't read ALL of it. It's used as the reference text by a lot of university courses on algorithms.
It's probably impossible for any book to fully describe C++ because it'a a perpetually moving target on a three year update cycle.
There are always new idioms and techniques to learn, but they keep being changed/added without any obvious coherent design strategy or logical goal.
Books can barely keep up. Stroustrop's own C++ introduction is for C++11, which is already five years and nearly two releases old.
The end of the book even included a grammar for C++ (with a slight comment about how the grammar wasn't exact because of C++ context sensitivity)