ratings and handicap correlation

i was wondering if it would be possible to construct a correlation between rating differences and a possible handicap for the higher rated player.

for example, if player A has a rating of 1500 and player B has a rating of 1000, a ratings difference of 500 points would relate to a handicap of, say, 5 points (or a rook). or another example, if player A is 800 points above player B than player A should be handicapped by 9 points (or a queen).

is there anything like this out there? and do you think it would be possible to contruct a standard correlation?

i dont think that would work...ex if me (~1450 OTB) played ~2250 with an extra queen i would win easily

you don't get an extra queen. 2250 player would be down his queen, for example. and he'd probably still beat you (no offense).

Some things are probably better off not known . . . 

--Cystem

This would be an interesting sort of system to work out (particularly if one felt like mathematizing it as far as is possible), but, as with practically everything of this sort, there are too many variables to take into account. For one, pieces vary in strength according to who is using them. For my own part, I tend to overvalue my knights and undervalue the bishop pair. For other persons, it is the opposite.

Further, it seems like this sort of thing changes drastically according to the rating. A pawn differential at low levels (sub-1000) is close-to-nothing. A pawn differential at higher levels (over 2500) is immense.

That makes sense for the same reason that at some levels the first move advantage simply doesn't provide any actual advantage:  The mistakes made from one move to the next can aggregate to the equivalent of the material (or temporal) imbalance much more easily as the "mistakes" tend to be more frequent and significant.

It's even conceivable (although maybe a bit of a stretch) that if both players were new enough to the game that even a handicap as significant as giving Knight odds might not confer any more of an advantage than having the first move would between evenly matched players.

thats what i meant...but no, id win.

i agree with what people are saying. the correlation scale would probably not be static (as in any 500 rating difference = a rook, for example). it would have to be a sliding scale of some kind.

i don't have the patience to work it out, but i think coming up with some correlation could be feasible and quite interesting.