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		52	0.33	22	0.00	56	0.05	53	0.05	58	0.05	64	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		12	0.44	21	0.00	14	0.13	11	0.55	15	0.59	7	0.57
Ashkenazy 1981		36	0.35	67	0.00	52	0.05	51	0.05	52	0.07	58	0.06
Bacha 2000		45	0.34	45	0.00	38	0.05	35	0.16	18	0.47	27	0.27
Badura 1965		66	0.30	46	0.00	57	0.05	49	0.05	47	0.07	56	0.06
Barbosa 1983		21	0.40	39	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.22	56	0.06	43	0.11
Biret 1990		14	0.43	43	0.00	20	0.10	18	0.46	14	0.61	10	0.53
Blet 2003		83	0.22	13	0.00	88	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03
Block 1995		68	0.28	88	0.00	62	0.04	67	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.04
Blumental 1952		28	0.37	19	0.00	34	0.06	32	0.21	43	0.14	34	0.17
Boshniakovich 1969		77	0.24	72	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	81	0.04	75	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		32	0.36	38	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.09	35	0.22	38	0.14
Bunin 1987		55	0.33	49	0.00	64	0.04	62	0.04	48	0.07	65	0.05
Bunin 1987b		62	0.31	48	0.00	65	0.05	48	0.05	56	0.05	60	0.05
Chiu 1999		40	0.35	42	0.00	63	0.04	61	0.04	61	0.05	67	0.04
Cohen 1997		48	0.34	31	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	26	0.49	35	0.16
Cortot 1951		43	0.34	59	0.00	29	0.08	30	0.23	14	0.57	20	0.36
Csalog 1996		37	0.35	35	0.00	51	0.05	47	0.05	39	0.13	48	0.08
Czerny 1949		4	0.52	6	0.02	5	0.49	4	0.72	2	0.84	2	0.78
Czerny 1990		23	0.39	25	0.00	7	0.14	20	0.45	34	0.41	16	0.43
Duchoud 2007		38	0.35	41	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.11	20	0.42	31	0.21
Ezaki 2006		29	0.37	89	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.17	46	0.10	40	0.13
Falvay 1989		10	0.45	8	0.01	8	0.11	12	0.54	11	0.46	12	0.50
Farrell 1958		11	0.44	23	0.00	11	0.17	6	0.60	3	0.67	5	0.63
Ferenczy 1958		74	0.26	47	0.00	77	0.03	73	0.03	55	0.06	73	0.04
Fliere 1977		34	0.36	81	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.15	73	0.04	47	0.08
Fou 1978		17	0.42	29	0.00	13	0.17	14	0.52	24	0.43	13	0.47
Francois 1956		61	0.32	51	0.00	60	0.04	60	0.04	25	0.38	42	0.12
Friedman 1923		79	0.23	90	0.00	83	0.03	77	0.03	74	0.04	90	0.03
Friedman 1923b		81	0.23	70	0.00	82	0.02	89	0.02	57	0.05	89	0.03
Friedman 1930		86	0.20	14	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	74	0.04	85	0.03
Garcia 2007		87	0.20	87	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	69	0.04	87	0.03
Garcia 2007b		73	0.26	33	0.00	61	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.04	78	0.04
Gierzod 1998		46	0.34	52	0.00	40	0.05	37	0.15	47	0.07	44	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		19	0.42	37	0.00	18	0.10	21	0.42	21	0.51	14	0.46
Groot 1988		53	0.33	30	0.00	33	0.05	33	0.18	65	0.04	49	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.46	24	0.00	12	0.23	8	0.59	30	0.35	15	0.45
Hatto 1993		18	0.42	18	0.00	21	0.10	16	0.47	34	0.20	22	0.31
Hatto 1997		6	0.47	5	0.05	6	0.27	7	0.60	12	0.56	6	0.58
Horowitz 1949		80	0.23	26	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	65	0.04	83	0.03
Indjic 1988		20	0.42	75	0.00	22	0.12	17	0.46	34	0.28	18	0.36
Kapell 1951		22	0.39	28	0.00	17	0.11	22	0.41	36	0.21	24	0.29
Kissin 1993		56	0.33	62	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.15	40	0.28	32	0.20
Kushner 1989		15	0.43	16	0.00	9	0.14	13	0.52	35	0.26	17	0.37
Luisada 1991		51	0.33	64	0.00	69	0.05	50	0.05	64	0.06	59	0.05
Lushtak 2004		58	0.32	71	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	51	0.05	57	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.38	50	0.00	23	0.11	19	0.46	39	0.20	23	0.30
Magaloff 1978		47	0.34	86	0.00	36	0.05	39	0.13	59	0.04	50	0.07
Magin 1975		41	0.35	73	0.00	49	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.04
Michalowski 1933		84	0.21	53	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	58	0.06	72	0.04
Milkina 1970		2	0.55	3	0.16	2	0.30	2	0.78	3	0.80	1	0.79
Mohovich 1999		50	0.33	78	0.00	46	0.04	64	0.04	50	0.05	76	0.04
Moravec 1969		9	0.45	9	0.01	15	0.15	10	0.56	8	0.54	9	0.55
Morozova 2008		7	0.47	11	0.00	10	0.14	9	0.58	8	0.56	8	0.57
Neighaus 1950		59	0.32	82	0.00	53	0.04	59	0.04	57	0.05	77	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.25	60	0.00	71	0.03	72	0.03	69	0.04	81	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.43	7	0.01	24	0.10	23	0.39	29	0.30	21	0.34
Osinska 1989		26	0.38	68	0.00	27	0.07	24	0.38	48	0.06	36	0.15
Pachmann 1927		75	0.25	61	0.00	78	0.03	75	0.03	54	0.06	71	0.04
Paderewski 1930		85	0.20	85	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	59	0.05	70	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		78	0.24	58	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.03	79	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		82	0.23	55	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	58	0.04	80	0.03
Poblocka 1999		49	0.34	56	0.00	59	0.04	70	0.04	60	0.05	66	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		24	0.39	40	0.00	16	0.10	15	0.49	19	0.54	11	0.51
Rachmaninoff 1923		33	0.36	34	0.00	26	0.08	29	0.24	35	0.25	28	0.24
Rangell 2001		42	0.35	74	0.00	28	0.08	27	0.29	28	0.45	19	0.36
Richter 1976		31	0.36	66	0.00	50	0.04	55	0.04	56	0.06	62	0.05
Rosen 1989		57	0.32	36	0.00	68	0.04	57	0.04	83	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		63	0.31	54	0.00	32	0.06	41	0.10	40	0.24	37	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		60	0.32	15	0.00	58	0.04	68	0.04	31	0.40	41	0.13
Rosenthal 1931b		71	0.27	44	0.00	72	0.03	71	0.03	43	0.15	53	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		54	0.33	10	0.01	55	0.04	56	0.04	36	0.21	46	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		70	0.28	32	0.00	70	0.06	46	0.06	24	0.34	39	0.14
Rossi 2007		88	0.18	76	0.00	81	0.02	86	0.02	44	0.16	54	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1952		5	0.51	2	0.17	3	0.27	5	0.67	5	0.69	4	0.68
Rubinstein 1966		3	0.54	4	0.08	4	0.39	3	0.76	10	0.68	3	0.72
Schilhawsky 1960		67	0.28	27	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	44	0.10	63	0.05
Shebanova 2002		65	0.30	65	0.00	66	0.05	54	0.05	53	0.07	55	0.06
Smith 1975		30	0.36	79	0.00	48	0.04	63	0.04	43	0.13	51	0.07
Sokolov 2002		44	0.34	63	0.00	41	0.04	42	0.10	33	0.34	33	0.18
Sztompka 1959		39	0.35	20	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	51	0.06	52	0.07
Tomsic 1995		64	0.31	83	0.00	47	0.04	58	0.04	51	0.07	61	0.05
Uninsky 1932		35	0.35	12	0.00	19	0.08	26	0.30	31	0.26	26	0.28
Uninsky 1971		13	0.43	17	0.00	25	0.14	25	0.37	36	0.23	25	0.29
Wasowski 1980		27	0.37	57	0.00	30	0.07	28	0.26	38	0.18	29	0.22
Zak 1937		72	0.26	77	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	65	0.05	69	0.04
Zak 1951		69	0.28	91	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.04	82	0.03
Average		1	0.59	1	0.40	1	0.39	1	0.83	54	0.06	30	0.22
Random 1		89	0.04	69	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	11	0.47	45	0.10
Random 2		90	0.02	80	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	52	0.05	86	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.07	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	68	0.03	91	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).