Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)

There are enough proofs of this ,that nowadays engines can't be beaten by any human player,the best that can be reached is some laughable draw ,nothing more.(and it depends on the opening)

Human with computer can beat a computer.

And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

There are many true statements which are completely meaningless to the issue of human vs. computer games. The fact that a human plus a computer can beat a computer at chess is one of those statements.

I don't think it's entirely meaningless. It says that there still is something to people that machines lack (for now). 

The only thing this tells us is that in a human + comp vs. comp game, the human doesn't have to worry about making tactical mistakes, and he can try to supply long-term strategy that's superior to the computer's ability. However, in a human vs. comp game, the human also has to supply 100% of his side's tactical talent. And that's the critical difference.

And, of course, endgame play. I agree with you, though. In my opinion, that's just enough information for that comment to deserve its place here. 

Vettel is in a Ferrari now.

For anyone interessted, here the (probably) last human vs machine experiment:

On July 19, 2014, Stockfish 5 played a four game match versus Daniel Naroditsky plus Rybka 3 (2008), 45 minutes plus 30-second increment. Stockfish won 3½ - ½ ^[10][11]. A few weeks later the experiment continued with Hikaru Nakamura in Burlingame, California ^[12]. Supported two games by Rybka 3, Nakamura lost ½ - 1½, two games with pawn odds (Stockfish both Black without h- and b-pawn) ended ½ - 1½ in favour to Stockfish 5 as well. It played the latest development build compiled for OS X running on a 3 GHz 8-Core Mac Pro ^[13]

(Source: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Stockfish)

So even with the help of a (slightly weaker) engine, the number 3 of the world still can not beat the world-best chess engine in a tournament condition!

Can he beat the machine in a correspondence chess without help of computer? That is the interessting question!

The answer to the last question is yes.  If it wasn't true, there would no longer be any correspondence chess championships.

I've heard many times that human players are still able to handle computers in correspondence time control. Apparently the horizon effect https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Horizon+Effect is a limiting factor in software performance. I've seen a strong master resisting against Komodo with some bizarre gambits (during correspondence play of course).
That being said, in correspondence you can use computers and a human with computer will beat a lone computer of course.
On the other hand, in standard tournament controls human has no chance.

I think he meant Houdini would win 8 out of 10 points, with Magnus losing 6, but drawing 4, as he declares in this video ---->>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj188KNjQL4

Humans versus Houdini? Check this out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borislav_Ivanov

It seems the disgusting cheater won or drew every game by following blindly Houdini's moves. He didn't have the luxury of watching the analysis, just receiving info about what to play. So this wasn't a human with engine aid but just someone acting as an avatar for Houdini.

1. Blitz / rapid - Computers win easily
2. Classical - Compters win easily
3. CC - Humans WITH computer aid can beat pure computer dependant players
4. Top human players agree computers are far superior
5. CC Humans vs computers? .......................Humans win!!

Great logic there, get a brain. 

That's from 2005, computing power and heuristics have come a long way since then.