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		31	0.53	21	0.01	47	0.06	55	0.06	83	0.03	61	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		83	0.24	34	0.00	77	0.05	63	0.05	77	0.03	58	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		55	0.42	27	0.00	62	0.04	66	0.04	80	0.03	80	0.03
Bacha 2000		23	0.56	47	0.00	20	0.10	21	0.45	17	0.34	15	0.39
Badura 1965		75	0.31	84	0.00	64	0.06	53	0.06	76	0.03	62	0.04
Barbosa 1983		38	0.50	53	0.00	32	0.09	30	0.31	36	0.18	28	0.24
Biret 1990		25	0.55	41	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.36	66	0.05	35	0.13
Blet 2003		32	0.53	85	0.00	45	0.08	41	0.16	63	0.04	43	0.08
Block 1995		63	0.39	61	0.00	35	0.05	46	0.10	69	0.03	54	0.05
Blumental 1952		46	0.46	39	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.15	44	0.09	36	0.12
Boshniakovich 1969		54	0.44	67	0.00	54	0.06	56	0.06	80	0.03	64	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		17	0.58	17	0.01	8	0.12	14	0.53	10	0.46	10	0.49
Bunin 1987		77	0.30	66	0.00	84	0.05	61	0.05	87	0.02	81	0.03
Bunin 1987b		76	0.30	77	0.00	83	0.04	77	0.04	88	0.02	68	0.03
Chiu 1999		41	0.49	87	0.00	24	0.08	24	0.38	36	0.19	25	0.27
Cohen 1997		27	0.54	22	0.01	7	0.21	16	0.51	1	0.58	8	0.54
Cortot 1951		66	0.36	31	0.00	78	0.04	70	0.04	84	0.03	84	0.03
Csalog 1996		3	0.70	7	0.05	4	0.22	11	0.56	1	0.65	4	0.60
Czerny 1949		70	0.32	57	0.00	79	0.05	60	0.05	77	0.04	60	0.04
Czerny 1990		29	0.54	49	0.00	38	0.05	35	0.25	78	0.03	42	0.09
Duchoud 2007		67	0.35	44	0.00	76	0.04	74	0.04	89	0.02	77	0.03
Ezaki 2006		40	0.50	26	0.00	49	0.09	48	0.09	49	0.05	44	0.07
Falvay 1989		1	0.73	4	0.06	3	0.23	3	0.66	1	0.70	2	0.68
Farrell 1958		20	0.56	64	0.00	31	0.07	29	0.31	43	0.11	30	0.18
Ferenczy 1958		59	0.40	75	0.00	66	0.03	84	0.03	43	0.08	52	0.05
Fliere 1977		21	0.56	40	0.00	28	0.07	23	0.44	49	0.05	31	0.15
Fou 1978		8	0.66	3	0.08	5	0.21	4	0.62	9	0.47	7	0.54
Francois 1956		26	0.54	32	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.29	58	0.05	37	0.12
Friedman 1923		89	-0.05	80	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		87	-0.04	89	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Friedman 1930		86	0.05	83	0.00	86	0.03	81	0.03	89	0.02	88	0.02
Garcia 2007		73	0.32	91	0.00	75	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.03	78	0.03
Garcia 2007b		84	0.21	45	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	81	0.03	86	0.03
Gierzod 1998		42	0.49	36	0.00	51	0.09	47	0.09	83	0.03	53	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		53	0.45	25	0.00	52	0.11	45	0.11	74	0.03	49	0.06
Groot 1988		10	0.66	9	0.04	9	0.13	8	0.58	19	0.45	9	0.51
Harasiewicz 1955		72	0.32	16	0.01	57	0.04	76	0.04	70	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1993		82	0.27	46	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	77	0.03	83	0.03
Hatto 1997		79	0.30	55	0.00	73	0.05	62	0.05	64	0.04	59	0.04
Horowitz 1949		61	0.39	71	0.00	63	0.05	59	0.05	87	0.02	70	0.03
Indjic 1988		80	0.29	48	0.00	71	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03	73	0.03
Kapell 1951		36	0.51	68	0.00	34	0.06	44	0.11	42	0.11	38	0.11
Kissin 1993		7	0.66	11	0.02	10	0.14	2	0.67	24	0.31	12	0.46
Kushner 1989		22	0.56	35	0.00	26	0.09	22	0.45	58	0.05	32	0.15
Luisada 1991		28	0.54	12	0.02	19	0.13	20	0.45	36	0.19	24	0.29
Lushtak 2004		19	0.57	6	0.06	13	0.12	18	0.47	25	0.25	20	0.34
Malcuzynski 1961		64	0.39	58	0.00	70	0.03	82	0.03	64	0.04	69	0.03
Magaloff 1978		14	0.62	14	0.02	12	0.11	10	0.56	17	0.37	11	0.46
Magin 1975		62	0.39	18	0.01	58	0.04	78	0.04	84	0.02	67	0.03
Michalowski 1933		85	0.10	33	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	89	0.02	87	0.02
Milkina 1970		4	0.68	8	0.05	6	0.31	5	0.62	6	0.57	5	0.59
Mohovich 1999		6	0.66	13	0.02	11	0.14	7	0.60	27	0.33	13	0.44
Moravec 1969		16	0.58	15	0.01	27	0.07	25	0.38	16	0.40	16	0.39
Morozova 2008		52	0.45	72	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.14	75	0.03	48	0.06
Neighaus 1950		57	0.41	59	0.00	61	0.06	54	0.06	86	0.02	82	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		56	0.41	86	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.03	66	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		49	0.46	28	0.00	46	0.07	50	0.07	50	0.05	47	0.06
Osinska 1989		18	0.57	19	0.01	21	0.12	19	0.47	62	0.04	33	0.14
Pachmann 1927		44	0.47	24	0.00	36	0.05	39	0.24	23	0.28	27	0.26
Paderewski 1930		35	0.51	81	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	67	0.03	56	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		30	0.53	10	0.04	25	0.08	28	0.31	32	0.17	29	0.23
Pierdomenico 2008		45	0.47	42	0.00	50	0.08	49	0.08	58	0.05	46	0.06
Poblocka 1999		48	0.46	30	0.00	56	0.05	58	0.05	58	0.05	51	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		34	0.51	62	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.26	68	0.03	41	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		68	0.34	73	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	60	0.04	55	0.04
Rangell 2001		43	0.48	50	0.00	22	0.09	38	0.24	47	0.05	39	0.11
Richter 1976		74	0.31	20	0.01	55	0.04	65	0.04	77	0.03	71	0.03
Rosen 1989		24	0.55	29	0.00	29	0.06	26	0.38	52	0.05	34	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		60	0.40	56	0.00	65	0.04	73	0.04	88	0.02	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		50	0.46	78	0.00	40	0.06	36	0.25	21	0.41	21	0.32
Rosenthal 1931b		51	0.46	90	0.00	41	0.10	37	0.24	17	0.38	23	0.30
Rosenthal 1931c		39	0.50	60	0.00	39	0.06	33	0.26	22	0.37	22	0.31
Rosenthal 1931d		33	0.51	69	0.00	23	0.08	31	0.30	7	0.53	14	0.40
Rossi 2007		81	0.28	79	0.00	59	0.04	75	0.04	42	0.11	45	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		5	0.67	1	0.25	1	0.25	6	0.60	2	0.63	3	0.61
Rubinstein 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1966		2	0.73	2	0.10	2	0.29	1	0.71	1	0.76	1	0.73
Schilhawsky 1960		65	0.36	43	0.00	68	0.04	79	0.04	81	0.03	74	0.03
Shebanova 2002		11	0.65	54	0.00	14	0.09	17	0.50	25	0.31	17	0.39
Smith 1975		37	0.50	63	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.21	58	0.04	40	0.09
Sokolov 2002		58	0.41	37	0.00	67	0.03	80	0.03	69	0.03	65	0.03
Sztompka 1959		69	0.34	74	0.00	80	0.06	51	0.06	86	0.03	57	0.04
Tomsic 1995		9	0.66	51	0.00	15	0.16	12	0.55	8	0.60	6	0.57
Uninsky 1932		78	0.30	52	0.00	82	0.04	68	0.04	81	0.03	75	0.03
Uninsky 1971		71	0.32	38	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.03
Wasowski 1980		47	0.46	82	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	48	0.06	50	0.05
Zak 1937		12	0.65	65	0.00	16	0.14	13	0.53	32	0.22	19	0.34
Zak 1951		13	0.63	23	0.00	17	0.14	9	0.58	28	0.23	18	0.37
Average		15	0.62	5	0.06	18	0.13	15	0.52	40	0.14	26	0.27
Random 1		91	-0.12	76	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	39	0.19	63	0.04
Random 2		88	-0.04	88	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	56	0.04	76	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.10	70	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	78	0.02	89	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).