Rubinstein 1966

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		9	0.58	45	0.00	18	0.09	20	0.41	31	0.17	22	0.26
Anderszewski 2003		52	0.44	15	0.01	54	0.05	64	0.05	64	0.03	68	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		44	0.47	48	0.00	35	0.05	38	0.20	61	0.04	44	0.09
Bacha 2000		28	0.51	38	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	25	0.40	26	0.20
Badura 1965		57	0.42	41	0.00	22	0.11	23	0.39	12	0.45	11	0.42
Barbosa 1983		21	0.54	5	0.04	6	0.20	7	0.55	6	0.56	5	0.55
Biret 1990		43	0.48	72	0.00	52	0.05	65	0.05	69	0.04	71	0.04
Blet 2003		24	0.53	62	0.00	29	0.06	28	0.32	46	0.07	32	0.15
Block 1995		61	0.41	52	0.00	51	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.04	69	0.04
Blumental 1952		74	0.36	20	0.00	69	0.05	61	0.05	70	0.04	70	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		41	0.48	32	0.00	13	0.09	17	0.42	25	0.38	14	0.40
Brailowsky 1960		42	0.48	10	0.01	46	0.04	69	0.04	41	0.11	46	0.07
Bunin 1987		67	0.39	88	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	72	0.04	84	0.03
Bunin 1987b		65	0.39	89	0.00	74	0.04	76	0.04	69	0.03	78	0.03
Chiu 1999		62	0.41	58	0.00	40	0.08	37	0.21	49	0.05	40	0.10
Cohen 1997		76	0.35	44	0.00	36	0.06	40	0.14	31	0.26	29	0.19
Cortot 1951		70	0.38	65	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.03	85	0.03
Csalog 1996		25	0.53	18	0.01	37	0.09	32	0.29	17	0.47	16	0.37
Czerny 1949		59	0.42	55	0.00	56	0.06	55	0.06	55	0.05	57	0.05
Czerny 1990		33	0.50	49	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.10	65	0.04	52	0.06
Duchoud 2007		37	0.49	46	0.00	63	0.07	46	0.07	65	0.04	59	0.05
Ezaki 2006		23	0.54	50	0.00	30	0.08	27	0.32	41	0.11	28	0.19
Falvay 1989		11	0.56	35	0.00	19	0.08	16	0.43	36	0.17	20	0.27
Farrell 1958		40	0.48	22	0.00	47	0.04	70	0.04	43	0.13	48	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		38	0.49	19	0.01	60	0.06	58	0.06	39	0.14	43	0.09
Fliere 1977		16	0.55	81	0.00	21	0.14	21	0.41	57	0.05	33	0.14
Fou 1978		5	0.65	1	0.45	1	0.45	2	0.68	3	0.61	3	0.64
Francois 1956		31	0.50	39	0.00	31	0.06	35	0.25	51	0.05	39	0.11
Friedman 1923		86	0.03	82	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923b		87	0.03	87	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02
Friedman 1930		85	0.09	69	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	81	0.03	86	0.02
Garcia 2007		82	0.28	9	0.01	77	0.03	78	0.03	43	0.11	51	0.06
Garcia 2007b		84	0.09	78	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.02	89	0.02
Gierzod 1998		49	0.45	83	0.00	58	0.06	49	0.06	65	0.04	58	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		22	0.54	28	0.00	20	0.09	8	0.51	31	0.24	18	0.35
Groot 1988		8	0.59	79	0.00	15	0.08	12	0.46	39	0.19	19	0.30
Harasiewicz 1955		77	0.34	59	0.00	27	0.07	29	0.31	57	0.04	38	0.11
Hatto 1993		53	0.44	16	0.01	32	0.07	30	0.30	39	0.16	25	0.22
Hatto 1997		35	0.50	8	0.01	25	0.07	24	0.37	32	0.20	21	0.27
Horowitz 1949		64	0.41	84	0.00	48	0.05	60	0.05	41	0.09	49	0.07
Indjic 1988		51	0.45	24	0.00	33	0.10	33	0.28	40	0.15	27	0.20
Kapell 1951		39	0.48	60	0.00	65	0.06	56	0.06	82	0.03	65	0.04
Kissin 1993		10	0.57	11	0.01	11	0.13	9	0.50	22	0.35	9	0.42
Kushner 1989		17	0.55	47	0.00	23	0.09	22	0.40	42	0.13	24	0.23
Luisada 1991		15	0.55	12	0.01	10	0.14	10	0.50	26	0.33	12	0.41
Lushtak 2004		36	0.49	53	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.33	57	0.05	34	0.13
Malcuzynski 1961		26	0.53	26	0.00	57	0.07	47	0.07	70	0.04	55	0.05
Magaloff 1978		46	0.47	42	0.00	59	0.06	50	0.06	68	0.03	64	0.04
Magin 1975		72	0.36	56	0.00	70	0.04	74	0.04	75	0.03	77	0.03
Michalowski 1933		83	0.16	76	0.00	83	0.05	59	0.05	65	0.04	67	0.04
Milkina 1970		4	0.66	6	0.02	4	0.20	5	0.64	4	0.59	4	0.61
Mohovich 1999		3	0.68	2	0.21	3	0.35	1	0.75	3	0.67	1	0.71
Moravec 1969		29	0.51	37	0.00	55	0.05	66	0.05	66	0.04	62	0.04
Morozova 2008		34	0.50	54	0.00	24	0.10	25	0.34	61	0.04	36	0.12
Neighaus 1950		27	0.52	31	0.00	28	0.06	31	0.30	50	0.06	35	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.33	73	0.00	81	0.04	73	0.04	83	0.02	76	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.51	85	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	71	0.04	50	0.06
Osinska 1989		19	0.55	36	0.00	9	0.17	15	0.44	12	0.47	7	0.45
Pachmann 1927		48	0.46	74	0.00	38	0.06	39	0.19	25	0.34	23	0.25
Paderewski 1930		47	0.47	68	0.00	61	0.06	48	0.06	53	0.05	56	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		56	0.43	66	0.00	49	0.06	57	0.06	66	0.04	53	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.38	43	0.00	62	0.06	53	0.06	58	0.04	54	0.05
Poblocka 1999		18	0.55	34	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.13	69	0.04	47	0.07
Rabcewiczowa 1932		50	0.45	61	0.00	41	0.04	42	0.13	33	0.23	30	0.17
Rachmaninoff 1923		81	0.29	29	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.03
Rangell 2001		13	0.56	17	0.01	12	0.14	14	0.45	16	0.38	13	0.41
Richter 1976		58	0.42	40	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	76	0.03	79	0.03
Rosen 1989		32	0.50	63	0.00	34	0.05	34	0.28	52	0.04	37	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		68	0.39	25	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		69	0.39	23	0.00	53	0.05	63	0.05	30	0.22	41	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.35	64	0.00	67	0.06	51	0.06	47	0.05	61	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		55	0.43	75	0.00	66	0.06	52	0.06	66	0.03	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		73	0.36	70	0.00	68	0.06	54	0.06	49	0.05	60	0.05
Rossi 2007		88	0.02	80	0.00	86	0.03	82	0.03	57	0.03	74	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		7	0.60	13	0.01	8	0.15	11	0.49	3	0.58	6	0.53
Rubinstein 1952		2	0.68	4	0.04	2	0.29	3	0.67	1	0.63	2	0.65
Rubinstein 1966		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Schilhawsky 1960		79	0.33	57	0.00	79	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.03	81	0.03
Shebanova 2002		12	0.56	71	0.00	14	0.09	13	0.45	22	0.39	10	0.42
Smith 1975		45	0.47	30	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.24	77	0.03	45	0.08
Sokolov 2002		66	0.39	51	0.00	82	0.04	77	0.04	77	0.03	73	0.03
Sztompka 1959		54	0.44	77	0.00	64	0.05	62	0.05	66	0.04	66	0.04
Tomsic 1995		6	0.62	7	0.02	7	0.17	6	0.61	19	0.31	8	0.43
Uninsky 1932		80	0.33	67	0.00	73	0.03	83	0.03	67	0.04	82	0.03
Uninsky 1971		60	0.42	27	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	77	0.03	80	0.03
Wasowski 1980		63	0.41	86	0.00	50	0.04	68	0.04	61	0.04	63	0.04
Zak 1937		14	0.56	21	0.00	17	0.12	18	0.42	29	0.32	15	0.37
Zak 1951		20	0.54	14	0.01	16	0.08	19	0.41	30	0.30	17	0.35
Average		1	0.68	3	0.05	5	0.25	4	0.67	65	0.04	31	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.07	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	70	0.03	87	0.02
Random 2		89	0.00	33	0.00	87	0.04	75	0.04	25	0.25	42	0.10
Random 3		90	-0.04	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	82	0.02	91	0.01

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).