Yes, these tournaments are online, and for free.
There are a lot of patzers in there which exclusively use Houdini 1.5/2/3, and they are low rated- many of them below 1700.
The strongest correspondence player ATM is rated 2711. That "3300" you mentioned would actually become 1500 in ICCF, if the Houdini operator is a woodpusher.
I see you STILL have not understood that a strong engine definitely does not make a strong player, but nevermind.
What pfren is getting at is that the operator of the engine is a huge factor in an engine's success in a long game. Those who just sit and think "houdini will eventually tell me what to play next" will not do nearly as well as those who know how to see beyond which line squeezes out one more centipawn.
not a chessplayer in my book
Some people here try to explain to another that using a machine to correct your weakness in positional aspects could look a bit crazy, exactly similar to the people only playing the 1 minute games as a drug and getting actually a final rank of 1275-1350, like me, except that I play also slow games and don't use a computer to help me to believe I'm a reincarnation of Fischer. But, you know, arrogance can easily take the place of intelligence or philosophy, no big deal. Sometimes, we just don't get it. due to Ego.
Thief 1,
Definitely machines are better than humans at calculating. No doubt. Chess has a mathematical side.
However, I am more interested in the human side, the struggle between two wills, and also in the aesthetic or artistic side of chess. The appreciation of beauty, the feelings of a human soul, the computer has no way of replicating.
Computers have an unfair advantage in that they can consult their own internal database; it is in this respect that the fight is unfair. They also do not have a complex spiritual/emotional/mental/physical system, like humans do. Therefore chessgames between humans and machines are unfair, and of no interest to me.
It is beautiful they play chess.
If they have the WORST pawn structure in the world, they will still evaluate it because they know there could be something hidden there, where a human would reject the idea due to asthetics.
And I don't like playing against computers, they are very good and I don't like to lose. Although if I lose, I'll probably learn why I lost. Against a computer, its because I overlooked some tactic, or hung a piece.
And in the games I don't lose pieces, I don't understand why I lost. In a natural position, I make one normal move and lose. After I go over the game with a computer, it evaluates the position as losing, but I don't know why, and the position doesn't have to be tactical for this to happen!
not a chessplayer in my book
some people agree with you, call it "a thing that makes moves in a chess game" if you want.
they dont even know they're playing chess
Just wrote a blog about an incredible game between Rybka and Houdini that illustrates just how good engines have become. It is here: http://blog.chess.com/Clavius/most-impressive-computer-game-ever
Does the LSS allow engine use?
Looking at their website, it's not clear what the rules are.
Yes they do, but they also have no-engine tournaments, which they monitor very carefully.
LSS is a very respected correspondence chess server, which is free to use. ICCF does have a fee for participation in most important tournaments.
Engine usage is part of the "modern" correspondence advanced chess, championships are held like that. There has been a lot of debate about this subject, but ATM engines are allowed by correspondence chess authorities.
I think that this kind of chess is quite simply different from OTB play, and its up to the player to accept it, or not.
Chess is about using your own brain, not about using a computer... where's the fun and benefit in that?
I always loved "the match" pfren vs. computerlovers :)
go pfren! :D
He isn't even guaranteed to beat strong grandmasters every time, in fact his recent tournament results aren't all that great so he has no chance against Houdini running on multiple cores. Its actually irrelevant because Houdini 'cheats' by having perfect access to the most up to date opening theory and endgame tablebases while playing, most of us could play better if we were looking things up as we went along.
if you think the opening book isn't a big deal try playing against an engine with the opening book turned off, they play 500 ELO worse.
Carlsen musta seen what you wrote there, Vease. Sinse you posted it 7 months ago, he has only lost 1 game that I know of. Way to motivate a guy!
"Carlsen has said in an interview that he does not play computers, because it is like playing an idiot who can beat you every time!"
An interesting quote... certainly one way to look at it... 
Watching a computer play chess is akin to watching paint dry.........I also have a disdain for anyoe that supports this kind of chess......offended.....oh well leran to live with it........just as I have learned to live with you
How would Houdini fare in a game vs 3 to 5 super GMs in cooperation? If more cores = better performance, would more super GM brains = human win?
One's Rogue'n the others Vogue'n
GMBABY,
Возможно, если бы вы говорили на русском языке, мы поняли бы лучше?
I think it is really unfair if humans play against computers, computers virtually don't have "touch-move-place" rule, also like others said, a game of computers are boring, they don't have creativeness because the only reason why computers beat humans is because of chess's mathematical side. And like the Math subject, playing chess using ONLY mathematical things(xD) is boring. I'm a Bachelor of Science Major in Mathematics student though. 
If you want to play against me, then subscribe to ICCF or LSS and join a tournament I'm in. Currently active at LSS with a rating of 2376.
That way you will definitely prove you are not a patzer.
Regards.