>Hypermodern materialistic chess is focused on maximizing material, so there are no dramatic sacrifices or grandiose positional moves. (Romantic chess/sacrifices/positional play is a very human form of chess. Hypermodern/material is a very computerized form of chess)

This is muddled. Modern chess, and engine chess still has sacrifices. It's just that the romantic era was characterised by unsound sacrifices, which people would still make because opponents would invariably take the material on offer. You can find many fascinating sacrifices in recent games featuring top engines like leela.

Early engines were great at tactics (winning material) and less good at positions. But modern engines are much better at positional chess, albeit with some weakspots. Many initially incomprehensible moves can only be understood much later in a game when they reveal a subtle positional advantage.

The rough eras of chess go like this:

romantic - unsound sacrifices which are accepted.

modern (late 19th / early 20th century) - focused on position rather than (just) material. Effectively killed the romantic era because it is superior.

hypermodern (post WW1) - broadened modern ideas to include indirect control and other ideas like overprotection, outposts etc. It is also a positional form of chess.