Rangell 2001

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   57  0.2363  0.0048  0.0549  0.0551  0.0549  0.05
Ashkenazy 1981   7  0.463  0.076  0.2411  0.6110  0.575  0.59
Beliavsky 2004   21  0.3838  0.0022  0.1620  0.4513  0.499  0.47
BenOr 1989   29  0.3565  0.0030  0.0630  0.1555  0.0633  0.09
Biret 1990   41  0.3261  0.0047  0.0639  0.0660  0.0450  0.05
Blet 2003   49  0.2958  0.0052  0.0458  0.0460  0.0460  0.04
Block 1995   31  0.3527  0.0034  0.0833  0.0840  0.0738  0.07
Brailowsky 1960   51  0.2949  0.0055  0.0551  0.0560  0.0454  0.04
Chiu 1999   26  0.3610  0.0132  0.0831  0.1533  0.0830  0.11
Clidat 1994   13  0.4324  0.0012  0.1612  0.5918  0.3513  0.45
Cohen 1997   15  0.4020  0.0017  0.0916  0.518  0.636  0.57
Coop 1987   17  0.3929  0.0020  0.1218  0.5060  0.0424  0.14
Cortot 1951   39  0.3218  0.0044  0.0548  0.0521  0.4126  0.14
Czerny 1949   42  0.3136  0.0049  0.0454  0.0453  0.0562  0.04
Czerny 1949b   48  0.2950  0.0053  0.0547  0.0541  0.0645  0.05
Ezaki 2006   37  0.3340  0.0039  0.0546  0.0558  0.0543  0.05
Falvay 1989   45  0.304  0.0429  0.0632  0.1160  0.0437  0.07
Ferenczy 1958   58  0.2339  0.0058  0.0364  0.0358  0.0561  0.04
Fiorentino 1962   63  0.1664  0.0062  0.0363  0.0358  0.0564  0.04
Fliere 1977   47  0.2957  0.0038  0.0545  0.0557  0.0451  0.04
Fou 1978   34  0.3332  0.0040  0.0455  0.0446  0.0647  0.05
Francois 1956   23  0.3848  0.0021  0.1617  0.5114  0.4411  0.47
Hatto 1997   5  0.4947  0.005  0.235  0.677  0.651  0.66
Horowitz 1971   30  0.3533  0.0033  0.0737  0.0737  0.0740  0.07
Horowitz 1985   56  0.2553  0.0054  0.0542  0.0560  0.0452  0.04
Indjic 2001   2  0.508  0.023  0.263  0.698  0.632  0.66
Kapell 1951   25  0.3626  0.0026  0.1024  0.3146  0.0623  0.14
Kiepura 1999   40  0.3243  0.0042  0.0543  0.0541  0.0644  0.05
Kilenyi 1937   59  0.2254  0.0059  0.0361  0.0361  0.0465  0.03
Kissin 1993   10  0.457  0.0211  0.1410  0.6222  0.447  0.52
Kitain 1937   46  0.3031  0.0035  0.0738  0.0726  0.3322  0.15
Kushner 1990   11  0.4435  0.0010  0.149  0.6327  0.2815  0.42
Levy 1951   55  0.2555  0.0046  0.0453  0.0449  0.0557  0.04
Luisada 1990   44  0.3022  0.0051  0.0552  0.0532  0.1335  0.08
Lushtak 2004   16  0.4028  0.0016  0.1019  0.4730  0.1617  0.27
Lympany 1968   32  0.3425  0.0027  0.0828  0.2141  0.0629  0.11
Magaloff 1977   38  0.3213  0.0150  0.0544  0.0540  0.0648  0.05
Magaloff 1977b   20  0.3812  0.0123  0.1523  0.356  0.4216  0.38
Magin 1975   50  0.2914  0.0156  0.0541  0.0555  0.0459  0.04
Milkina 1970   6  0.4919  0.007  0.286  0.6623  0.338  0.47
Mohovich 1999   43  0.305  0.0313  0.1322  0.3830  0.1718  0.25
Nadelmann 1956   18  0.3923  0.0015  0.1014  0.5560  0.0421  0.15
Ohlsson 1999   28  0.3637  0.0024  0.0927  0.2334  0.0727  0.13
Olejniczac 1990   62  0.2052  0.0061  0.0459  0.0460  0.0563  0.04
Olejniczak 1991   60  0.2159  0.0060  0.0460  0.0460  0.0458  0.04
Osinska 1989   12  0.4434  0.0019  0.1215  0.5147  0.0620  0.17
Paderewski 1912   19  0.3816  0.0114  0.1113  0.5720  0.3214  0.43
Perahia 1994   8  0.466  0.029  0.218  0.6321  0.3510  0.47
Perlemuter 1986   9  0.4511  0.018  0.177  0.6620  0.3112  0.45
Poblocka 1999   36  0.3362  0.0041  0.0550  0.0558  0.0455  0.04
Rangell 2001   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Risler 1920   61  0.2056  0.0063  0.0457  0.0461  0.0456  0.04
Rosen 1989   53  0.269  0.0157  0.0834  0.0841  0.0936  0.08
Rubinstein 1939   4  0.492  0.162  0.344  0.686  0.593  0.63
Rubinstein 1952   27  0.3615  0.0125  0.1126  0.2448  0.0432  0.10
Rubinstein 1966   14  0.4144  0.0018  0.1121  0.4150  0.0525  0.14
Rummel 1943   35  0.3360  0.0036  0.0736  0.0740  0.0642  0.06
Shebanova 2002   24  0.3741  0.0028  0.0925  0.2559  0.0431  0.10
Smith 1975   33  0.3445  0.0037  0.0735  0.0753  0.0541  0.06
Szpilman 1948   52  0.2766  0.0043  0.0456  0.0455  0.0553  0.04
Uninsky 1971   22  0.3821  0.0031  0.0729  0.1661  0.0434  0.08
Wasowski 1980   3  0.4917  0.004  0.202  0.749  0.524  0.62
Weissenberg 1971   54  0.2630  0.0045  0.0640  0.0661  0.0446  0.05
Average   1  0.581  0.521  0.511  0.8662  0.0419  0.19
Random 1    66  -0.0846  0.0066  0.0166  0.0166  0.0166  0.01
Random 2   64  0.0942  0.0064  0.0362  0.034  0.5928  0.13
Random 3   65  0.0451  0.0065  0.0265  0.0223  0.2239  0.07

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).