Rubinstein 1952

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		28	0.50	55	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.13	57	0.05	42	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		80	0.22	51	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	80	0.03	71	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		51	0.41	27	0.00	49	0.05	61	0.05	75	0.03	66	0.04
Bacha 2000		29	0.50	63	0.00	28	0.08	26	0.26	19	0.45	19	0.34
Badura 1965		67	0.34	82	0.00	56	0.05	65	0.05	66	0.04	65	0.04
Barbosa 1983		45	0.44	18	0.01	36	0.05	35	0.18	59	0.04	40	0.08
Biret 1990		43	0.45	28	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.12	64	0.04	43	0.07
Blet 2003		47	0.44	74	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	73	0.04	62	0.04
Block 1995		33	0.48	43	0.00	27	0.09	32	0.19	39	0.15	27	0.17
Blumental 1952		77	0.25	59	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	82	0.03	77	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		23	0.53	25	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.39	31	0.29	20	0.34
Brailowsky 1960		16	0.56	58	0.00	23	0.11	22	0.39	23	0.37	16	0.38
Bunin 1987		66	0.34	10	0.03	69	0.04	72	0.04	89	0.02	80	0.03
Bunin 1987b		65	0.34	23	0.00	70	0.04	71	0.04	79	0.03	69	0.03
Chiu 1999		50	0.41	64	0.00	22	0.10	24	0.36	36	0.20	23	0.27
Cohen 1997		36	0.47	14	0.01	13	0.12	10	0.52	1	0.61	7	0.56
Cortot 1951		72	0.27	65	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Csalog 1996		9	0.63	7	0.05	5	0.16	6	0.59	1	0.62	4	0.60
Czerny 1949		60	0.37	54	0.00	67	0.05	63	0.05	80	0.03	64	0.04
Czerny 1990		42	0.45	76	0.00	59	0.06	56	0.06	82	0.03	67	0.04
Duchoud 2007		63	0.35	37	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	84	0.03	75	0.03
Ezaki 2006		37	0.47	77	0.00	57	0.05	62	0.05	64	0.04	58	0.04
Falvay 1989		4	0.66	50	0.00	7	0.19	4	0.60	10	0.49	8	0.54
Farrell 1958		56	0.39	52	0.00	63	0.07	49	0.07	69	0.03	53	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		68	0.33	81	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.03
Fliere 1977		18	0.55	61	0.00	21	0.12	19	0.43	61	0.05	30	0.15
Fou 1978		7	0.63	3	0.13	2	0.20	5	0.59	6	0.54	6	0.56
Francois 1956		20	0.55	22	0.01	30	0.06	31	0.21	43	0.13	28	0.17
Friedman 1923		91	-0.20	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		90	-0.19	88	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Friedman 1930		87	-0.01	53	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02
Garcia 2007		83	0.14	83	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Garcia 2007b		85	0.04	78	0.00	85	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02
Gierzod 1998		46	0.44	70	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	53	0.05	47	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		25	0.52	16	0.01	26	0.09	25	0.31	40	0.16	24	0.22
Groot 1988		5	0.65	4	0.09	8	0.12	9	0.52	22	0.37	13	0.44
Harasiewicz 1955		59	0.37	9	0.03	34	0.05	39	0.14	64	0.04	44	0.07
Hatto 1993		79	0.23	79	0.00	47	0.07	51	0.07	48	0.05	48	0.06
Hatto 1997		73	0.27	17	0.01	29	0.07	38	0.16	57	0.04	41	0.08
Horowitz 1949		31	0.49	32	0.00	35	0.05	29	0.24	49	0.05	35	0.11
Indjic 1988		76	0.25	84	0.00	32	0.06	40	0.13	47	0.06	36	0.09
Kapell 1951		52	0.41	31	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	65	0.04	61	0.04
Kissin 1993		3	0.68	13	0.02	6	0.20	3	0.62	8	0.58	3	0.60
Kushner 1989		39	0.46	89	0.00	54	0.06	54	0.06	84	0.03	60	0.04
Luisada 1991		35	0.47	40	0.00	24	0.07	28	0.24	58	0.05	34	0.11
Lushtak 2004		44	0.44	11	0.02	31	0.06	33	0.19	39	0.16	26	0.17
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.54	24	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.13	82	0.03	46	0.06
Magaloff 1978		12	0.60	8	0.03	11	0.11	12	0.49	36	0.17	22	0.29
Magin 1975		53	0.41	26	0.00	46	0.07	52	0.07	60	0.04	52	0.05
Michalowski 1933		84	0.08	56	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	83	0.02
Milkina 1970		1	0.70	2	0.14	3	0.19	2	0.63	3	0.61	2	0.62
Mohovich 1999		11	0.61	71	0.00	20	0.11	20	0.42	23	0.33	18	0.37
Moravec 1969		22	0.53	19	0.01	39	0.07	34	0.18	33	0.17	25	0.17
Morozova 2008		61	0.36	66	0.00	55	0.05	60	0.05	85	0.02	72	0.03
Neighaus 1950		32	0.48	38	0.00	40	0.05	37	0.16	64	0.05	38	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		54	0.40	57	0.00	64	0.08	48	0.08	67	0.03	51	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.53	6	0.06	16	0.12	21	0.41	29	0.23	21	0.31
Osinska 1989		13	0.58	12	0.02	12	0.10	11	0.51	14	0.43	11	0.47
Pachmann 1927		15	0.56	49	0.00	15	0.14	18	0.44	10	0.58	10	0.51
Paderewski 1930		30	0.50	47	0.00	53	0.07	50	0.07	62	0.03	54	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		34	0.47	41	0.00	33	0.05	36	0.18	38	0.14	29	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		49	0.42	48	0.00	37	0.05	30	0.23	46	0.06	32	0.12
Poblocka 1999		27	0.50	42	0.00	52	0.08	47	0.08	73	0.04	45	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		62	0.36	39	0.00	65	0.06	55	0.06	73	0.03	59	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		81	0.22	90	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	85	0.03	82	0.02
Rangell 2001		19	0.55	67	0.00	14	0.13	15	0.46	10	0.44	12	0.45
Richter 1976		41	0.46	46	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.12	52	0.05	39	0.08
Rosen 1989		40	0.46	44	0.00	38	0.07	27	0.25	72	0.03	37	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.30	36	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	85	0.02	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.27	85	0.00	62	0.06	57	0.06	51	0.05	55	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.27	91	0.00	61	0.05	64	0.05	51	0.05	56	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		57	0.38	72	0.00	60	0.06	58	0.06	61	0.04	57	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		55	0.39	60	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	33	0.16	31	0.13
Rossi 2007		82	0.15	35	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.02	81	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		26	0.51	1	0.16	1	0.16	8	0.52	2	0.61	5	0.56
Rubinstein 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1966		2	0.68	20	0.01	4	0.15	1	0.63	3	0.67	1	0.65
Schilhawsky 1960		69	0.30	45	0.00	73	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.04
Shebanova 2002		10	0.61	29	0.00	9	0.13	7	0.55	13	0.49	9	0.52
Smith 1975		38	0.47	34	0.00	51	0.07	53	0.07	53	0.04	50	0.05
Sokolov 2002		58	0.38	21	0.01	71	0.04	68	0.04	80	0.03	68	0.03
Sztompka 1959		71	0.29	33	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	81	0.03	70	0.03
Tomsic 1995		8	0.63	5	0.07	10	0.17	13	0.47	23	0.29	17	0.37
Uninsky 1932		78	0.24	68	0.00	81	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.02	86	0.02
Uninsky 1971		64	0.34	80	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.02	84	0.02
Wasowski 1980		48	0.42	30	0.00	48	0.06	59	0.06	54	0.05	49	0.05
Zak 1937		14	0.56	86	0.00	17	0.11	14	0.47	25	0.35	14	0.41
Zak 1951		17	0.55	62	0.00	18	0.14	17	0.46	27	0.33	15	0.39
Average		6	0.63	15	0.01	19	0.09	16	0.46	77	0.03	33	0.12
Random 1		89	-0.08	69	0.00	89	0.02	85	0.02	51	0.04	78	0.03
Random 2		88	-0.02	73	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	60	0.04	74	0.03
Random 3		86	0.00	75	0.00	88	0.03	82	0.03	62	0.03	79	0.03

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).