Cortot 1951

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   33  0.5532  0.0034  0.0836  0.0844  0.0636  0.07
Ashkenazy 1981   34  0.5545  0.0033  0.0837  0.0862  0.0545  0.06
Beliavsky 2004   36  0.5515  0.0019  0.0927  0.2561  0.0430  0.10
BenOr 1989   44  0.5136  0.0048  0.0647  0.0663  0.0455  0.05
Biret 1990   41  0.5337  0.0044  0.0552  0.0543  0.0656  0.05
Blet 2003   51  0.4860  0.0061  0.0553  0.0543  0.0550  0.05
Block 1995   16  0.5834  0.0024  0.1023  0.3153  0.0425  0.11
Brailowsky 1960   48  0.5029  0.0058  0.0362  0.0356  0.0658  0.04
Chiu 1999   21  0.5821  0.0012  0.099  0.5645  0.063  0.18
Clidat 1994   7  0.622  0.185  0.298  0.5661  0.059  0.17
Cohen 1997   61  0.459  0.0149  0.0460  0.0431  0.1834  0.08
Coop 1987   18  0.5850  0.0016  0.1212  0.4862  0.0415  0.14
Cortot 1951   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Czerny 1949   9  0.6012  0.017  0.206  0.6650  0.062  0.20
Czerny 1949b   6  0.6211  0.016  0.245  0.7359  0.047  0.17
Ezaki 2006   25  0.5753  0.0028  0.1025  0.2963  0.0332  0.09
Falvay 1989   12  0.5949  0.0017  0.1815  0.4560  0.0420  0.13
Ferenczy 1958   62  0.4466  0.0063  0.0550  0.0560  0.0460  0.04
Fiorentino 1962   56  0.4761  0.0059  0.0363  0.0361  0.0466  0.03
Fliere 1977   35  0.5547  0.0038  0.0744  0.0761  0.0539  0.06
Fou 1978   11  0.5948  0.0011  0.1010  0.5260  0.0510  0.16
Francois 1956   37  0.5435  0.0037  0.0645  0.0657  0.0457  0.05
Hatto 1997   26  0.5754  0.0039  0.0935  0.0960  0.0535  0.07
Horowitz 1971   20  0.5818  0.0023  0.0721  0.3254  0.0521  0.13
Horowitz 1985   59  0.4651  0.0057  0.0646  0.0661  0.0446  0.05
Indjic 2001   29  0.5658  0.0041  0.1034  0.1060  0.0537  0.07
Kapell 1951   28  0.5643  0.0031  0.0930  0.2362  0.0429  0.10
Kiepura 1999   8  0.6114  0.0020  0.0717  0.4060  0.0419  0.13
Kilenyi 1937   55  0.4762  0.0050  0.0456  0.0463  0.0461  0.04
Kissin 1993   3  0.671  0.431  0.421  0.8159  0.044  0.18
Kitain 1937   63  0.3016  0.0045  0.0551  0.0546  0.0554  0.05
Kushner 1990   31  0.5613  0.0010  0.1120  0.3647  0.0612  0.15
Levy 1951   53  0.4756  0.0043  0.0738  0.0741  0.0640  0.06
Luisada 1990   39  0.5352  0.0047  0.0742  0.0760  0.0543  0.06
Lushtak 2004   2  0.675  0.062  0.292  0.8061  0.045  0.18
Lympany 1968   23  0.5731  0.0032  0.1329  0.2457  0.0427  0.10
Magaloff 1977   17  0.5830  0.0027  0.0828  0.2562  0.0431  0.10
Magaloff 1977b   14  0.596  0.0322  0.0822  0.3161  0.0426  0.11
Magin 1975   10  0.6020  0.0025  0.1018  0.3754  0.0514  0.14
Milkina 1970   13  0.5944  0.0021  0.0919  0.3649  0.0611  0.15
Mohovich 1999   52  0.4726  0.0053  0.0457  0.0450  0.0563  0.04
Nadelmann 1956   40  0.5339  0.0046  0.0743  0.0746  0.0642  0.06
Ohlsson 1999   42  0.5364  0.0042  0.0740  0.0763  0.0449  0.05
Olejniczac 1990   57  0.4759  0.0060  0.0458  0.0458  0.0562  0.04
Olejniczak 1991   47  0.5057  0.0051  0.0461  0.0461  0.0459  0.04
Osinska 1989   5  0.6410  0.018  0.307  0.6363  0.0313  0.14
Paderewski 1912   30  0.5628  0.0014  0.0914  0.4662  0.0416  0.14
Perahia 1994   50  0.497  0.0256  0.0554  0.0544  0.0552  0.05
Perlemuter 1986   43  0.5255  0.0040  0.0739  0.0750  0.0641  0.06
Poblocka 1999   19  0.5819  0.0026  0.0824  0.3062  0.0423  0.11
Rangell 2001   15  0.5941  0.0018  0.1111  0.4962  0.0417  0.14
Risler 1920   60  0.4527  0.0052  0.0459  0.0463  0.0364  0.03
Rosen 1989   54  0.4746  0.0062  0.0648  0.0660  0.0453  0.05
Rubinstein 1939   45  0.5123  0.0029  0.0932  0.2142  0.0624  0.11
Rubinstein 1952   32  0.5533  0.0015  0.1016  0.4250  0.0518  0.14
Rubinstein 1966   49  0.4965  0.0055  0.0549  0.0538  0.0651  0.05
Rummel 1943   46  0.5124  0.0036  0.0741  0.0738  0.0644  0.06
Shebanova 2002   22  0.5822  0.0030  0.0931  0.2263  0.0433  0.09
Smith 1975   24  0.5725  0.0013  0.0813  0.4838  0.066  0.17
Szpilman 1948   58  0.4663  0.0054  0.0555  0.0555  0.0547  0.05
Uninsky 1971   4  0.653  0.094  0.404  0.7660  0.048  0.17
Wasowski 1980   27  0.564  0.079  0.1026  0.2862  0.0422  0.11
Weissenberg 1971   38  0.5417  0.0035  0.1033  0.1063  0.0348  0.05
Average   1  0.688  0.013  0.243  0.7862  0.051  0.20
Random 1    65  0.0042  0.0064  0.0264  0.025  0.4928  0.10
Random 2   64  0.0040  0.0065  0.0265  0.0252  0.0465  0.03
Random 3   66  -0.0138  0.0066  0.0166  0.015  0.5138  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).