I love looking at classic games with engines.

Here are two quotes pullled from the comments section of the "Better than ratings?" article that is linked within the article you linked too:

"Carlsen has a better caps rating than Fischer because no one is creative anymore. Everyone plays engine lines which puts them at the least amount of risk. Carlsen doesn't innovate the way Fischer did. Leela is the new Fischer. Only she makes chess exciting."

And the other:

"Far from clear in the Chess.com sense.
But there's an old joke about the two words.[Accuracy & Precision] I've idly tried to adjust my colloquial use when I can.
"Precision is (sorta) successfully performing an intended act to the same end that you tried to achieve.
"Regularly, this is great if you're in Baseball trying to throw pitches."
But the joke is, if you punch a brick wall in an abandoned alley 26 times in a row, .... your accuracy is 100%!
"Uhhh..." "Exactly"
"I really meant to open the door."
"Almost with you"
"Accuracy Zero, Precision 100%. I successfully punched the wall 26 times"
This has interesting applications for chess.
Jokes aside, if you're "prone" to things like overzealous Knight moves, you "tend towards high precision" but very likely could go down in Accuracy by 300 rating points. "

[I could see a tool to quote thread replies on the forum, but not to insert an external quote.]
In fairness, the two commenters were "Midnight Rhino" and "Punic88."

I found the above comments interesting in light of your replies, but I'm still very grateful that both of you took the time to answer! Even in my Noob mind, I was a little surprised of the CAPS rankings listed in the article. I also have tried to consider whether brilliancy in chess is not an exercise in violating the maxim: "There is no such thing as a winning move." But if not, than how is brilliancy defined and could that point out inadequacies in the CAPS system?

Food for Thought,

Cathexis

You might find this interesting... Some guys like Capablanca rate quite well based on engine analysis and some others like Steinitz much less well, although you could nitpick a lot of things.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-hist...

Greetings!

Has anyone ever tried running the most brilliant & classic games of the past through modern chess engines to see how they'd fare againest Stockfish, etc.?

Major quibble: Of course if ALL the moves aren't the same then you could say it's no longer the same game. True. And if you allow the engine to play whatever then it certainly would change the game into lines of its preference, especially if you task the engine with the losing side. But it would be interesting to load mid-game positions and see what the engines thought of the moves the great masters of the past had chosen, especially in the absence of regrettable and obvious blunders. I suppose also I could just load these games myself. But I'm curious if there's ever been a more "formal" study of this and what were the results?

Stay safe, be hopeful, and thanks in advance,

Cathexis