Goldenweiser 1946

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   48  0.3720  0.0042  0.0647  0.0659  0.0455  0.05
Ax 1995   7  0.529  0.0210  0.1310  0.5245  0.0813  0.20
Bacha 1998   61  0.2556  0.0060  0.0550  0.0561  0.0546  0.05
Barbosa 1983   32  0.4136  0.0043  0.0555  0.0557  0.0547  0.05
BenOr 1989   35  0.4065  0.0039  0.0646  0.0659  0.0457  0.05
Biret 1990   2  0.563  0.082  0.272  0.7126  0.263  0.43
Brailowsky 1960   8  0.524  0.073  0.185  0.6154  0.0614  0.19
Chiu 1999   55  0.3232  0.0057  0.0551  0.0553  0.0460  0.04
Clidat 1994   28  0.4350  0.0038  0.0637  0.0653  0.0550  0.05
Cohen 1997   62  0.2562  0.0061  0.0463  0.0459  0.0462  0.04
Cortot 1951   30  0.4219  0.0134  0.0641  0.064  0.6116  0.19
Csalog 1996   20  0.4623  0.0027  0.0826  0.2249  0.0628  0.11
Czerny 1989   11  0.4927  0.0016  0.1813  0.4950  0.0521  0.16
Ezaki 2006   40  0.3959  0.0044  0.0553  0.0546  0.0735  0.06
Falvay 1989   4  0.5213  0.016  0.127  0.6056  0.0615  0.19
Fiorentino 1962   22  0.466  0.0313  0.1611  0.5235  0.137  0.26
Fliere 1977   34  0.4122  0.0032  0.0732  0.1354  0.0534  0.08
Fou 1978   21  0.4655  0.0020  0.1619  0.4347  0.0620  0.16
Francois 1956   56  0.3151  0.0053  0.0548  0.0557  0.0559  0.05
Goldenweiser 1946   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Gornostaeva 1994   19  0.4721  0.0021  0.1821  0.3847  0.0623  0.15
Groot 1988   1  0.581  0.441  0.441  0.7527  0.301  0.47
Hatto 1993   36  0.4060  0.0029  0.0827  0.2061  0.0531  0.10
Hatto 1997   51  0.3740  0.0049  0.0552  0.0559  0.0548  0.05
Horszowski 1983   58  0.3038  0.0055  0.0642  0.0650  0.0442  0.05
Indjic 2001   45  0.3845  0.0040  0.0644  0.0663  0.0454  0.05
Katin 1996   39  0.3933  0.0028  0.0625  0.2354  0.0626  0.12
Kiepura 1999   10  0.4941  0.0017  0.2017  0.4553  0.0522  0.15
Korecka 1992   44  0.3957  0.0045  0.0460  0.0446  0.0836  0.06
Kushner 1990   23  0.4552  0.0030  0.0630  0.1754  0.0532  0.09
Lilamand 2001   63  0.1058  0.0063  0.0461  0.0461  0.0364  0.03
Luisada 1990   53  0.3647  0.0050  0.0549  0.0558  0.0651  0.05
Luisada 2008   47  0.3830  0.0051  0.0640  0.0649  0.0740  0.06
Lushtak 2004   24  0.4548  0.0023  0.0922  0.3548  0.0624  0.14
Malcuzynski 1951   6  0.5215  0.017  0.158  0.5953  0.0617  0.19
Malcuzynski 1961   12  0.4924  0.0015  0.2015  0.4752  0.0718  0.18
Magaloff 1977   26  0.448  0.0214  0.1618  0.4518  0.404  0.42
Magin 1975   31  0.4231  0.0024  0.0829  0.1841  0.0925  0.13
Meguri 1997   15  0.482  0.1111  0.1316  0.4623  0.345  0.40
Milkina 1970   43  0.3961  0.0026  0.0924  0.2459  0.0527  0.11
Mohovich 1999   42  0.3929  0.0025  0.0631  0.1558  0.0533  0.09
Nezu 2005   52  0.3766  0.0054  0.0554  0.0557  0.0553  0.05
Ohlsson 1999   41  0.3937  0.0047  0.0558  0.0561  0.0461  0.04
Olejniczak 1990   27  0.4346  0.0031  0.0928  0.1846  0.0730  0.11
Osinska 1989   18  0.4749  0.0019  0.1420  0.4239  0.119  0.21
Perlemuter 1992   60  0.2517  0.0162  0.0556  0.0541  0.0544  0.05
Poblocka 1999   49  0.3763  0.0048  0.0645  0.0657  0.0545  0.05
Rangell 2001   59  0.3034  0.0059  0.0462  0.0460  0.0463  0.04
Richter 1960   17  0.4711  0.0222  0.1223  0.3126  0.226  0.26
Richter 1961   13  0.4816  0.0118  0.1314  0.4714  0.422  0.44
Rosen 1989   3  0.5314  0.014  0.163  0.6655  0.0519  0.18
Rubinstein 1939   14  0.485  0.069  0.139  0.5745  0.0810  0.21
Rubinstein 1952   38  0.3926  0.0033  0.0736  0.0760  0.0458  0.05
Rubinstein 1966   54  0.3339  0.0041  0.0643  0.0654  0.0639  0.06
Rudanovskaya 2007   37  0.4025  0.0046  0.0557  0.0548  0.0552  0.05
Shebanova 2002   50  0.3710  0.0256  0.0638  0.0656  0.0449  0.05
Smith 1975   16  0.4712  0.0112  0.1512  0.5134  0.118  0.24
Sztompka 1959   46  0.3853  0.0052  0.0639  0.0652  0.0638  0.06
Tanyel 1992   5  0.527  0.035  0.154  0.6643  0.0712  0.21
Tsujii 2005   29  0.4228  0.0036  0.0833  0.0861  0.0441  0.06
Uninsky 1959   9  0.5218  0.018  0.156  0.6145  0.0711  0.21
Vardi 1988   33  0.4135  0.0037  0.0834  0.0855  0.0537  0.06
Wasowski 1980   57  0.3154  0.0058  0.0559  0.0562  0.0543  0.05
Zimerman 1975   25  0.4443  0.0035  0.0735  0.0763  0.0456  0.05
Random 1   65  -0.0842  0.0065  0.0265  0.0246  0.0465  0.03
Random 2   66  -0.1464  0.0066  0.0166  0.0166  0.0166  0.01
Random 3   64  0.0344  0.0064  0.0364  0.033  0.4229  0.11

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).