Hatto 1997

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   7  0.725  0.0011  0.1313  0.548  0.524  0.53
Ashkenazy 1981   4  0.7517  0.003  0.363  0.8023  0.433  0.59
Beliavsky 2004   48  0.6211  0.0049  0.0552  0.0546  0.0554  0.05
BenOr 1989   13  0.7025  0.0020  0.1117  0.4152  0.0624  0.16
Biret 1990   30  0.6652  0.0039  0.0641  0.0648  0.0647  0.06
Blet 2003   23  0.6826  0.0037  0.1233  0.1241  0.0835  0.10
Block 1995   34  0.6653  0.0040  0.0739  0.0752  0.0545  0.06
Brailowsky 1960   59  0.5748  0.0061  0.0562  0.0560  0.0464  0.04
Chiu 1999   18  0.6940  0.008  0.185  0.6531  0.2011  0.36
Clidat 1994   44  0.6334  0.0047  0.0738  0.0744  0.0544  0.06
Cohen 1997   38  0.6527  0.0024  0.0930  0.193  0.7610  0.38
Coop 1987   12  0.7020  0.0012  0.149  0.5834  0.1214  0.26
Cortot 1951   42  0.6429  0.0055  0.0561  0.0537  0.0748  0.06
Czerny 1949   58  0.5858  0.0058  0.0645  0.0656  0.0558  0.05
Czerny 1949b   43  0.6435  0.0033  0.0737  0.0742  0.0839  0.07
Ezaki 2006   16  0.703  0.0023  0.0823  0.3148  0.0821  0.16
Falvay 1989   5  0.7324  0.009  0.157  0.6234  0.1113  0.26
Ferenczy 1958   57  0.5841  0.0060  0.0643  0.0660  0.0456  0.05
Fiorentino 1962   41  0.6462  0.0041  0.0551  0.0546  0.0746  0.06
Fliere 1977   10  0.7121  0.007  0.188  0.6237  0.0817  0.22
Fou 1978   28  0.6730  0.0029  0.1127  0.2656  0.0533  0.11
Francois 1956   54  0.607  0.0043  0.0560  0.055  0.6520  0.18
Hatto 1997   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Horowitz 1971   55  0.5954  0.0052  0.0650  0.0655  0.0462  0.05
Horowitz 1985   62  0.5059  0.0062  0.0555  0.0555  0.0550  0.05
Indjic 2001   1  0.981  1.001  0.981  1.001  1.001  1.00
Kapell 1951   19  0.6955  0.0026  0.0822  0.3545  0.0723  0.16
Kiepura 1999   46  0.6360  0.0056  0.0558  0.0545  0.0549  0.05
Kilenyi 1937   51  0.6132  0.0046  0.0557  0.0552  0.0657  0.05
Kissin 1993   20  0.696  0.0013  0.1611  0.5440  0.0818  0.21
Kitain 1937   63  0.3963  0.0063  0.0647  0.0649  0.0461  0.05
Kushner 1990   52  0.6122  0.0051  0.0646  0.0662  0.0455  0.05
Levy 1951   39  0.6515  0.0034  0.0834  0.0841  0.0638  0.07
Luisada 1990   36  0.6642  0.0042  0.0554  0.0539  0.1040  0.07
Lushtak 2004   17  0.6936  0.0015  0.1015  0.5021  0.368  0.42
Lympany 1968   37  0.659  0.0038  0.0644  0.0635  0.0741  0.06
Magaloff 1977   26  0.6723  0.0030  0.0928  0.2436  0.0925  0.15
Magaloff 1977b   25  0.684  0.0025  0.0824  0.3050  0.0729  0.14
Magin 1975   33  0.6649  0.0053  0.0553  0.0554  0.0553  0.05
Milkina 1970   3  0.7528  0.006  0.174  0.7012  0.552  0.62
Mohovich 1999   31  0.6646  0.0018  0.0921  0.3638  0.0626  0.15
Nadelmann 1956   32  0.6647  0.0021  0.0929  0.2258  0.0534  0.10
Ohlsson 1999   29  0.6718  0.0032  0.0732  0.1452  0.0637  0.09
Olejniczac 1990   40  0.6431  0.0045  0.0836  0.0863  0.0443  0.06
Olejniczak 1991   45  0.6350  0.0044  0.0556  0.0545  0.0842  0.06
Osinska 1989   6  0.7266  0.0014  0.1714  0.5148  0.0719  0.19
Paderewski 1912   56  0.5961  0.0050  0.0648  0.0656  0.0559  0.05
Perahia 1994   50  0.618  0.0031  0.0831  0.1612  0.4912  0.28
Perlemuter 1986   22  0.6810  0.0019  0.1120  0.3614  0.526  0.43
Poblocka 1999   14  0.7037  0.0022  0.0918  0.3861  0.0527  0.14
Rangell 2001   21  0.6933  0.0027  0.0926  0.2745  0.0730  0.14
Risler 1920   61  0.5338  0.0057  0.0463  0.0446  0.0752  0.05
Rosen 1989   53  0.6156  0.0059  0.0642  0.0654  0.0560  0.05
Rubinstein 1939   47  0.6343  0.0036  0.0835  0.0820  0.3422  0.16
Rubinstein 1952   35  0.6644  0.0035  0.0740  0.0759  0.0463  0.05
Rubinstein 1966   8  0.7239  0.0016  0.1212  0.5417  0.395  0.46
Rummel 1943   60  0.552  0.0054  0.0559  0.0549  0.0465  0.04
Shebanova 2002   9  0.7214  0.0010  0.1510  0.5522  0.289  0.39
Smith 1975   15  0.7019  0.004  0.196  0.6333  0.1015  0.25
Szpilman 1948   49  0.6257  0.0048  0.0649  0.0657  0.0551  0.05
Uninsky 1971   27  0.6713  0.0017  0.0919  0.3749  0.0528  0.14
Wasowski 1980   11  0.7116  0.005  0.1716  0.4926  0.367  0.42
Weissenberg 1971   24  0.6845  0.0028  0.1325  0.2949  0.0631  0.13
Average   2  0.8112  0.002  0.782  0.9251  0.0616  0.23
Random 1    66  -0.0264  0.0066  0.0166  0.0144  0.0466  0.02
Random 2   64  0.0465  0.0064  0.0364  0.034  0.4732  0.12
Random 3   65  0.0051  0.0065  0.0265  0.028  0.5036  0.10

Note: To load data table give above into Excel, copy and paste the data into a text editor (such as WordPad) first, then copy the text in the editor and past into Excel. You should remove the "target" line from the data before pasting into Excel so that plotting graphs of the data is done properly.

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).