I think Kramnik - Deep Fritz in 2006 was the last venue with "equal" material (no odds or handicaps). I don't think corporations (IBMs, Intels) really see value in doing this any more for chess as the machines have clearly won ... years ago!!!
It now stands to reason that a chess engine on a "less-than-optimum PC" like say an iPhone may pack enough of a punch to take down a super GM at match-play. So maybe that's the only question left exploring?
On an iPhone? Phone aps aren't GM strength yet are they?
No longer chess computers, it's software now called engines.
Yes, all the engines play themselves and each other. Houdini 3 is the best right now. Here is one online rating list: http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/
Stockfish running on an iPhone is probably stronger than the Deep Fritz machine of 2006.
Wow really? I didn't know that.
On an iPhone? Phone aps aren't GM strength yet are they?
Not yet ... but I suppose we're getting there with more powerful processors/chipsets in each revision ... and given how market/sheeple-savvy Apple is, they'd love to see a super GM demolished by their flagship product :)
Update: This HIARCS page lends to this belief:
http://www.hiarcs.com/iHiarcsChess.htm
I read that Magnus Carlssen doesn't enjoy playing computers much and acknowledges that they beat him.
On an iPhone? Phone aps aren't GM strength yet are they?
This wasn't an iPhone, but Pocket Fritz 4 on an HTC Touch HD mobile phone won the 2009 Mercosur Cup tournament with a score of 9.5/10. Its one draw was against a 2522, and its 9 victories were against people rated 2406, 2523, 2452, 2357, 2445, 2424, 2419, 2390, 2342. The average rating of its 10 opponents was 2408.
That gives it a performance rating of 2900.
That was 4 years ago. Today's phones are quite a bit more powerful Pocket Fritz 4 used the HIARCS engine, which has improved since then and is available for iPhone, so yeah, it is pretty clear that you can easily get GM strength on your iPhone.
I don't think chess engines are necessarily stronger. I think it's more a factor of humans training weaknesses into their approach to the game. Chess computers make mistakes and blunders, too. It's just a matter of knowing how to spot it. Computers don't care how a board 'looks' or if the pattern is pretty or simple. Computers care if a position is weaker or stronger to however many plies of calculation.
With a bit of trial and error, I can play those chess engines to stalemate. Am I a grandmaster? Hardly. I'm struggling around 1500 on TT and 1800 on Chess Mentor. (It's really frustrating when you find moves with decisive, overwhelming advantage on Chess Mentor, or lines that some GM missed, so it tells you you're dead wrong INCORRECT not even alternate correct and demands you find the unmentioned weaker move. Or slightly stronger move, depending.) Still have some glaring weaknesses in my play that gets me thrashed by problems that would be considered trivial by even average players, sometimes. Don't play to 'beat' the engine until you have a very clear advantage and know if that advantage is what you think it is. Play to equalize and draw. Computer can't stop you from playing to draw if you don't make any mistakes.
Wow Houdini 4 is on 8th spot and Stockfish is in the lead. 
I don't think chess engines are necessarily stronger. I think it's more a factor of humans training weaknesses into their approach to the game. Chess computers make mistakes and blunders, too. It's just a matter of knowing how to spot it. Computers don't care how a board 'looks' or if the pattern is pretty or simple. Computers care if a position is weaker or stronger to however many plies of calculation.
With a bit of trial and error, I can play those chess engines to stalemate. Am I a grandmaster? Hardly. I'm struggling around 1500 on TT and 1800 on Chess Mentor. (It's really frustrating when you find moves with decisive, overwhelming advantage on Chess Mentor, or lines that some GM missed, so it tells you you're dead wrong INCORRECT not even alternate correct and demands you find the unmentioned weaker move. Or slightly stronger move, depending.) Still have some glaring weaknesses in my play that gets me thrashed by problems that would be considered trivial by even average players, sometimes. Don't play to 'beat' the engine until you have a very clear advantage and know if that advantage is what you think it is. Play to equalize and draw. Computer can't stop you from playing to draw if you don't make any mistakes.
What the?
What are you saying bro?
What's the art of playing for a draw and not a win. If you do not have anything good to say.....!
I'm sure Mikhail Tal would have been very displeased to hear you say that!
This begs the question: Has any Super GM recently allowed themselves to be embarrassed in a public defeat to an engine on a smartphone?
Or is this now a foregone conclusion (Chessbase did an interesting article on Komodo running on a present day Smartphone destroying 2006's best chess engine on a present day powerful PC/desktop)
i don't know if the computer has played with itself
but you can ask anand if he plays it
If I was a super chess computer I'd play with myself all the time
This begs the question: Has any Super GM recently allowed themselves to be embarrassed in a public defeat to an engine on a smartphone?
Or is this now a foregone conclusion (Chessbase did an interesting article on Komodo running on a present day Smartphone destroying 2006's best chess engine on a present day powerful PC/desktop)
IIRC Naka played a top engine with a little help. He had access to an opening database with stats, and had a weak engine to help him check lines for basic blunders (as well as offer suggestions of course).
He lost the match : /
On an iPhone? Phone aps aren't GM strength yet are they?
Not yet ... but I suppose we're getting there with more powerful processors/chipsets in each revision ... and given how market/sheeple-savvy Apple is, they'd love to see a super GM demolished by their flagship product :)
Update: This HIARCS page lends to this belief:
Chess sites go on about Deep Blue and Kasparov, but that was over a decade ago.