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		39	0.48	17	0.01	50	0.10	46	0.10	76	0.03	54	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		75	0.28	63	0.00	70	0.06	53	0.06	87	0.03	66	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		54	0.41	58	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	85	0.02	85	0.03
Bacha 2000		38	0.48	60	0.00	36	0.06	23	0.41	40	0.10	27	0.20
Badura 1965		86	0.21	68	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03
Barbosa 1983		37	0.48	51	0.00	22	0.09	21	0.43	15	0.34	16	0.38
Biret 1990		19	0.57	50	0.00	21	0.08	17	0.45	48	0.06	35	0.16
Blet 2003		28	0.55	88	0.00	27	0.07	22	0.43	56	0.05	36	0.15
Block 1995		78	0.26	26	0.00	25	0.05	45	0.13	71	0.04	45	0.07
Blumental 1952		6	0.67	8	0.02	6	0.28	24	0.41	7	0.36	17	0.38
Boshniakovich 1969		80	0.25	75	0.00	81	0.03	88	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		49	0.44	27	0.00	34	0.06	35	0.33	21	0.33	19	0.33
Bunin 1987		84	0.22	45	0.00	88	0.04	81	0.04	77	0.03	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		83	0.22	76	0.00	87	0.04	78	0.04	76	0.03	79	0.03
Chiu 1999		42	0.46	74	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.25	36	0.19	25	0.22
Cohen 1997		18	0.57	12	0.01	7	0.13	11	0.50	3	0.50	6	0.50
Cortot 1951		58	0.40	86	0.00	61	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.04	76	0.04
Csalog 1996		4	0.68	5	0.05	8	0.15	4	0.55	2	0.52	5	0.53
Czerny 1949		81	0.25	85	0.00	76	0.04	82	0.04	74	0.04	71	0.04
Czerny 1990		23	0.56	64	0.00	18	0.08	26	0.38	43	0.10	30	0.19
Duchoud 2007		69	0.32	13	0.01	75	0.05	63	0.05	82	0.02	82	0.03
Ezaki 2006		44	0.45	67	0.00	48	0.10	48	0.10	85	0.03	50	0.05
Falvay 1989		5	0.67	29	0.00	5	0.17	7	0.52	2	0.60	4	0.56
Farrell 1958		11	0.59	38	0.00	10	0.16	20	0.44	24	0.35	13	0.39
Ferenczy 1958		56	0.40	77	0.00	57	0.07	51	0.07	70	0.04	53	0.05
Fliere 1977		47	0.44	30	0.00	49	0.10	47	0.10	79	0.04	47	0.06
Fou 1978		14	0.59	18	0.01	15	0.06	9	0.52	51	0.05	33	0.16
Francois 1956		32	0.51	82	0.00	37	0.06	32	0.34	39	0.13	26	0.21
Friedman 1923		77	0.27	78	0.00	79	0.04	77	0.04	85	0.03	87	0.03
Friedman 1923b		76	0.27	59	0.00	78	0.04	76	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.04
Friedman 1930		79	0.25	65	0.00	80	0.04	80	0.04	64	0.05	68	0.04
Garcia 2007		46	0.44	83	0.00	55	0.05	68	0.05	69	0.03	73	0.04
Garcia 2007b		43	0.45	22	0.00	56	0.06	54	0.06	71	0.04	58	0.05
Gierzod 1998		48	0.44	44	0.00	54	0.05	69	0.05	79	0.03	72	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		68	0.34	47	0.00	51	0.07	50	0.07	86	0.02	75	0.04
Groot 1988		16	0.58	7	0.03	20	0.08	6	0.54	23	0.35	10	0.43
Harasiewicz 1955		70	0.30	56	0.00	73	0.05	70	0.05	78	0.03	77	0.04
Hatto 1993		60	0.37	46	0.00	62	0.06	55	0.06	70	0.04	57	0.05
Hatto 1997		62	0.37	48	0.00	63	0.05	61	0.05	74	0.04	69	0.04
Horowitz 1949		85	0.22	31	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Indjic 1988		63	0.37	54	0.00	64	0.05	59	0.05	73	0.04	65	0.04
Kapell 1951		12	0.59	61	0.00	24	0.08	34	0.33	71	0.04	42	0.11
Kissin 1993		24	0.56	32	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.31	44	0.09	31	0.17
Kushner 1989		21	0.57	14	0.01	19	0.09	13	0.49	51	0.05	34	0.16
Luisada 1991		22	0.57	4	0.05	14	0.07	18	0.45	42	0.13	24	0.24
Lushtak 2004		7	0.64	43	0.00	4	0.12	14	0.48	7	0.41	9	0.44
Malcuzynski 1961		87	0.17	41	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03
Magaloff 1978		15	0.58	20	0.01	12	0.10	27	0.38	7	0.43	11	0.40
Magin 1975		57	0.40	15	0.01	65	0.05	66	0.05	45	0.08	49	0.06
Michalowski 1933		82	0.24	57	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.03	81	0.03
Milkina 1970		25	0.55	35	0.00	16	0.09	8	0.52	41	0.16	22	0.29
Mohovich 1999		8	0.63	3	0.06	9	0.20	3	0.57	25	0.42	7	0.49
Moravec 1969		27	0.55	55	0.00	40	0.06	33	0.34	22	0.41	18	0.37
Morozova 2008		34	0.51	21	0.01	45	0.09	43	0.18	45	0.09	40	0.13
Neighaus 1950		72	0.30	39	0.00	74	0.06	56	0.06	66	0.05	56	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.38	89	0.00	53	0.05	64	0.05	63	0.04	60	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		65	0.36	28	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	56	0.05	63	0.04
Osinska 1989		36	0.50	36	0.00	31	0.05	25	0.40	61	0.04	39	0.13
Pachmann 1927		74	0.29	71	0.00	69	0.04	75	0.04	51	0.04	61	0.04
Paderewski 1930		41	0.47	84	0.00	44	0.09	41	0.22	54	0.04	43	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		26	0.55	10	0.02	17	0.08	19	0.44	48	0.06	32	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		61	0.37	42	0.00	59	0.05	67	0.05	60	0.05	52	0.05
Poblocka 1999		64	0.36	40	0.00	67	0.05	65	0.05	71	0.04	59	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		3	0.68	11	0.01	3	0.17	10	0.50	10	0.40	8	0.45
Rachmaninoff 1923		52	0.42	72	0.00	47	0.08	49	0.08	63	0.04	48	0.06
Rangell 2001		73	0.30	23	0.00	26	0.08	44	0.16	71	0.03	46	0.07
Richter 1976		88	0.10	24	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Rosen 1989		20	0.57	52	0.00	28	0.06	15	0.46	57	0.05	37	0.15
Rosenthal 1930		51	0.43	69	0.00	46	0.06	57	0.06	39	0.10	44	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		35	0.51	73	0.00	39	0.08	29	0.36	16	0.43	14	0.39
Rosenthal 1931b		33	0.51	87	0.00	41	0.10	30	0.36	15	0.44	12	0.40
Rosenthal 1931c		30	0.53	79	0.00	23	0.10	31	0.36	15	0.43	15	0.39
Rosenthal 1931d		40	0.48	90	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.28	16	0.39	20	0.33
Rossi 2007		53	0.41	80	0.00	43	0.08	42	0.19	23	0.32	23	0.25
Rubinstein 1939		1	0.78	1	0.45	1	0.45	1	0.67	2	0.64	1	0.65
Rubinstein 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1966		2	0.70	2	0.07	2	0.41	2	0.61	2	0.59	2	0.60
Schilhawsky 1960		67	0.35	53	0.00	71	0.06	52	0.06	82	0.03	67	0.04
Shebanova 2002		29	0.54	19	0.01	30	0.07	28	0.37	60	0.04	41	0.12
Smith 1975		31	0.52	34	0.00	29	0.07	16	0.46	27	0.21	21	0.31
Sokolov 2002		45	0.45	25	0.00	52	0.04	74	0.04	84	0.03	78	0.03
Sztompka 1959		55	0.41	33	0.00	58	0.05	60	0.05	85	0.03	62	0.04
Tomsic 1995		9	0.62	6	0.03	11	0.20	5	0.54	3	0.65	3	0.59
Uninsky 1932		66	0.36	37	0.00	72	0.05	62	0.05	82	0.03	70	0.04
Uninsky 1971		71	0.30	62	0.00	77	0.04	79	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04
Wasowski 1980		50	0.43	49	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	67	0.05	51	0.05
Zak 1937		13	0.59	66	0.00	32	0.05	38	0.30	43	0.13	28	0.20
Zak 1951		10	0.59	16	0.01	33	0.08	37	0.31	42	0.13	29	0.20
Average		17	0.58	9	0.02	13	0.08	12	0.49	68	0.04	38	0.14
Random 1		91	-0.17	70	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	28	0.21	55	0.05
Random 2		89	-0.03	91	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	75	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.15	81	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	52	0.05	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).