Rubinstein 1939

Performance		0-Rank	0-Score	1-Rank	1-Score	2-Rank	2-Score	3-Rank	3-Score	3R-Rank	3R-Score	4-Rank	4-Score	NED
Afanassiev 2001		53	0.25	30	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	78	0.03	67	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		24	0.32	16	0.01	28	0.09	32	0.24	55	0.03	36	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		44	0.27	45	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.11	83	0.03	44	0.06
Bacha 2000		23	0.32	41	0.00	30	0.07	33	0.24	77	0.03	33	0.08
Badura 1965		73	0.16	26	0.00	64	0.05	54	0.05	81	0.03	53	0.04
Barbosa 1983		43	0.28	55	0.00	32	0.09	30	0.25	72	0.04	30	0.10
Biret 1990		12	0.40	51	0.00	16	0.07	21	0.38	70	0.04	24	0.12
Blet 2003		36	0.28	38	0.00	63	0.04	55	0.04	85	0.02	65	0.03
Block 1995		80	0.12	63	0.00	70	0.03	78	0.03	86	0.02	82	0.02
Blumental 1952		49	0.26	56	0.00	33	0.05	35	0.17	70	0.04	37	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		68	0.20	77	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.15	67	0.03	40	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		5	0.46	14	0.01	6	0.24	5	0.52	23	0.34	5	0.42
Bunin 1987		33	0.29	28	0.00	58	0.04	59	0.04	87	0.02	70	0.03
Bunin 1987b		31	0.29	5	0.05	57	0.04	64	0.04	88	0.02	64	0.03
Chiu 1999		30	0.29	20	0.00	17	0.08	11	0.43	63	0.04	19	0.13
Cohen 1997		16	0.38	7	0.03	4	0.21	6	0.50	7	0.50	4	0.50
Cortot 1951		69	0.20	42	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	90	0.01	85	0.02
Csalog 1996		15	0.38	6	0.04	5	0.20	13	0.43	25	0.35	6	0.39
Czerny 1949		55	0.24	32	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	78	0.03	51	0.04
Czerny 1990		62	0.23	36	0.00	73	0.03	71	0.03	86	0.02	84	0.02
Duchoud 2007		20	0.34	68	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.11	76	0.03	43	0.06
Ezaki 2006		65	0.21	57	0.00	75	0.04	63	0.04	85	0.02	59	0.03
Falvay 1989		14	0.39	10	0.02	8	0.16	7	0.48	54	0.05	18	0.15
Farrell 1958		7	0.43	31	0.00	22	0.10	19	0.39	59	0.04	23	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		51	0.25	33	0.00	72	0.03	77	0.03	61	0.04	66	0.03
Fliere 1977		21	0.34	75	0.00	29	0.07	24	0.35	77	0.03	28	0.10
Fou 1978		11	0.42	23	0.00	7	0.19	4	0.54	54	0.05	16	0.16
Francois 1956		56	0.24	25	0.00	69	0.04	58	0.04	84	0.02	71	0.03
Friedman 1923		89	-0.11	73	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01
Friedman 1923b		88	-0.11	82	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01
Friedman 1930		87	-0.05	49	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.01	87	0.01
Garcia 2007		81	0.07	86	0.00	79	0.03	72	0.03	87	0.02	81	0.02
Garcia 2007b		79	0.13	60	0.00	56	0.04	57	0.04	62	0.04	58	0.04
Gierzod 1998		50	0.26	70	0.00	52	0.06	46	0.06	84	0.02	68	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		29	0.30	12	0.01	25	0.08	29	0.28	44	0.10	15	0.17
Groot 1988		37	0.28	40	0.00	35	0.05	38	0.14	82	0.02	47	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		75	0.15	19	0.00	53	0.06	45	0.06	83	0.03	57	0.04
Hatto 1993		8	0.43	52	0.00	11	0.17	12	0.43	30	0.24	10	0.32
Hatto 1997		4	0.47	4	0.09	9	0.14	15	0.42	28	0.24	9	0.32
Horowitz 1949		34	0.28	48	0.00	40	0.06	36	0.17	84	0.03	38	0.07
Indjic 1988		6	0.45	71	0.00	10	0.15	14	0.43	29	0.24	7	0.32
Kapell 1951		39	0.28	15	0.01	49	0.05	47	0.05	82	0.03	49	0.04
Kissin 1993		66	0.21	78	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.20	81	0.03	35	0.08
Kushner 1989		32	0.29	79	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	78	0.03	63	0.03
Luisada 1991		9	0.42	37	0.00	13	0.12	10	0.44	53	0.05	17	0.15
Lushtak 2004		64	0.22	65	0.00	51	0.05	49	0.05	86	0.03	54	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		61	0.23	76	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.02	75	0.02
Magaloff 1978		47	0.26	66	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.10	81	0.03	46	0.05
Magin 1975		54	0.24	18	0.00	45	0.05	50	0.05	85	0.02	62	0.03
Michalowski 1933		84	0.02	43	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.02	78	0.02
Milkina 1970		2	0.52	3	0.13	3	0.32	1	0.62	13	0.41	3	0.50
Mohovich 1999		52	0.25	90	0.00	66	0.05	48	0.05	84	0.03	55	0.04
Moravec 1969		17	0.37	11	0.02	20	0.06	26	0.33	63	0.04	25	0.11
Morozova 2008		13	0.40	24	0.00	12	0.08	18	0.41	79	0.03	27	0.11
Neighaus 1950		58	0.24	67	0.00	59	0.04	69	0.04	73	0.04	56	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		48	0.26	59	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	43	0.08	42	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		10	0.42	21	0.00	21	0.07	20	0.38	81	0.03	26	0.11
Osinska 1989		27	0.30	34	0.00	19	0.10	22	0.36	64	0.04	22	0.12
Pachmann 1927		35	0.28	17	0.00	15	0.07	17	0.41	42	0.12	14	0.22
Paderewski 1930		72	0.16	87	0.00	74	0.03	73	0.03	88	0.02	76	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		71	0.16	61	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	86	0.02	72	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.17	80	0.00	39	0.04	40	0.12	84	0.03	41	0.06
Poblocka 1999		46	0.26	46	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	78	0.04	48	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		74	0.15	58	0.00	78	0.03	74	0.03	89	0.02	74	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.24	13	0.01	60	0.04	67	0.04	79	0.03	60	0.03
Rangell 2001		28	0.30	72	0.00	27	0.09	23	0.36	65	0.03	32	0.10
Richter 1976		60	0.23	8	0.03	48	0.04	65	0.04	41	0.14	39	0.07
Rosen 1989		67	0.20	64	0.00	67	0.04	56	0.04	87	0.03	69	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		45	0.27	27	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.09	82	0.02	52	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		18	0.35	9	0.02	14	0.08	8	0.48	28	0.22	8	0.32
Rosenthal 1931b		26	0.31	53	0.00	24	0.09	16	0.41	37	0.17	12	0.26
Rosenthal 1931c		40	0.28	22	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.14	80	0.03	45	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		22	0.33	29	0.00	26	0.09	9	0.46	33	0.15	11	0.26
Rossi 2007		90	-0.11	81	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.01	86	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1952		3	0.51	1	0.25	1	0.25	2	0.61	8	0.52	1	0.56
Rubinstein 1966		1	0.60	2	0.19	2	0.26	3	0.58	10	0.49	2	0.53
Schilhawsky 1960		78	0.13	35	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	80	0.02
Shebanova 2002		38	0.28	88	0.00	18	0.09	28	0.29	50	0.06	20	0.13
Smith 1975		59	0.23	54	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	88	0.02	61	0.03
Sokolov 2002		63	0.22	50	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	88	0.01	73	0.02
Sztompka 1959		77	0.14	83	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.02	77	0.02
Tomsic 1995		42	0.28	62	0.00	55	0.04	60	0.04	53	0.05	50	0.04
Uninsky 1932		82	0.05	84	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.01	88	0.01
Uninsky 1971		76	0.14	39	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	88	0.01	79	0.02
Wasowski 1980		19	0.35	47	0.00	23	0.12	25	0.35	42	0.14	13	0.22
Zak 1937		25	0.32	89	0.00	31	0.10	27	0.31	84	0.03	29	0.10
Zak 1951		41	0.28	85	0.00	34	0.06	31	0.24	85	0.03	34	0.08
Random 1		85	0.01	69	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	10	0.41	21	0.13
Random 2		83	0.02	44	0.00	65	0.04	62	0.04	23	0.27	31	0.10
Random 3		86	-0.03	74	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	82	0.02	83	0.02

Column descriptions

• Performance:
• 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
• 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
• 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
• 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
• NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

• red = strongly similar performance to target
• orange = moderately similar performance
• yellow = weakly similar performance
• green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
• white = dissimilar to target
• blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).