Rubinstein 1966

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   45  0.5530  0.0046  0.0548  0.0550  0.0745  0.06
Bacha 1997   48  0.5338  0.0048  0.0737  0.0746  0.0734  0.07
Barbosa 1983   34  0.6146  0.0031  0.1330  0.1350  0.0533  0.08
Biret 1990   50  0.5141  0.0049  0.0549  0.0549  0.0550  0.05
Block 1995   9  0.755  0.0010  0.1615  0.5127  0.117  0.24
Brailowsky 1960   44  0.5635  0.0045  0.0644  0.0641  0.0742  0.06
Chiu 1999   8  0.7631  0.009  0.197  0.6532  0.0610  0.20
Clidat 1994   20  0.7024  0.0022  0.1219  0.4339  0.0719  0.17
Cohen 1997   18  0.7147  0.0021  0.1021  0.3949  0.0522  0.14
Cortot 1951   49  0.5216  0.0034  0.0739  0.0746  0.0548  0.06
Csalog 1996   25  0.6632  0.0028  0.1329  0.1340  0.0729  0.10
Czerny 1990   33  0.619  0.0032  0.1926  0.1940  0.0726  0.12
Ezaki 2006   19  0.7019  0.0025  0.1920  0.4034  0.0717  0.17
Ferenczy 1958   15  0.7236  0.0020  0.1016  0.4634  0.0716  0.18
Fliere 1977   14  0.7242  0.0024  0.1222  0.3550  0.0523  0.13
Fou 1978   5  0.7813  0.004  0.1713  0.5824  0.206  0.34
Francois 1956   46  0.5448  0.0047  0.0647  0.0648  0.0552  0.05
Grinberg 1951   42  0.5622  0.0043  0.0646  0.0646  0.0643  0.06
Hatto 1993   38  0.6049  0.0041  0.0835  0.0850  0.0547  0.06
Hatto 1997   40  0.5933  0.0042  0.0740  0.0750  0.0541  0.06
Indjic 2001   39  0.5934  0.0040  0.0834  0.0850  0.0544  0.06
Jonas 1947   32  0.6217  0.0019  0.1027  0.1850  0.0530  0.09
Kapell 1951   35  0.6110  0.0038  0.0738  0.0744  0.0737  0.07
Kiepura 1999   37  0.6043  0.0023  0.0925  0.2236  0.0724  0.12
Kushner 1989   27  0.643  0.0017  0.1424  0.2626  0.179  0.21
Luisada 1991   30  0.6237  0.0035  0.0741  0.0746  0.0640  0.06
Lushtak 2004   12  0.7312  0.0015  0.149  0.6122  0.275  0.41
Magaloff 1978   24  0.6611  0.0026  0.1523  0.3042  0.0525  0.12
Meguri 1997   41  0.5918  0.0039  0.0645  0.0650  0.0551  0.05
Milkina 1970   3  0.8014  0.005  0.225  0.7134  0.088  0.24
Mohovich 1999   26  0.657  0.0029  0.1231  0.1240  0.0731  0.09
Niedzielski 1931   43  0.5650  0.0044  0.0550  0.0550  0.0549  0.05
Ohlsson 1999   4  0.8025  0.006  0.194  0.7149  0.0420  0.17
Olejniczak 1990   36  0.6139  0.0036  0.0836  0.0843  0.0739  0.07
Osinska 1989   6  0.7828  0.007  0.2511  0.6040  0.0612  0.19
Rangell 2001   10  0.754  0.003  0.213  0.726  0.642  0.68
Richter 1976   22  0.6940  0.0027  0.1528  0.1540  0.0728  0.10
Rubinstein 1938   7  0.7815  0.008  0.228  0.644  0.564  0.60
Rubinstein 1952   2  0.8020  0.002  0.356  0.664  0.633  0.64
Rubinstein 1961   1  0.971  0.961  0.941  0.981  0.981  0.98
Rubinstein 1966   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Shebanova 2002   21  0.7021  0.0013  0.1318  0.4437  0.0811  0.19
Smidowicz 1948   28  0.6344  0.0033  0.0833  0.0849  0.0638  0.07
Smidowicz 1948b   31  0.6223  0.0037  0.0743  0.0750  0.0546  0.06
Smith 1975   29  0.6351  0.0030  0.1132  0.1138  0.0632  0.08
Sofronitsky 1949   47  0.5327  0.0050  0.0742  0.0745  0.0736  0.07
Sztompka 1959   16  0.728  0.0012  0.1417  0.4647  0.0521  0.15
Tomsic 1995   23  0.676  0.0018  0.1112  0.6046  0.0614  0.19
Uninsky 1971   17  0.7126  0.0016  0.1414  0.5336  0.0715  0.19
Wasowski 1980   11  0.7545  0.0011  0.1710  0.6147  0.0518  0.17
Average Tempo   13  0.722  0.0014  0.152  0.7550  0.0513  0.19
Random 1   51  0.0052  0.0051  0.0451  0.0417  0.2427  0.10
Random 2   52  0.0053  0.0053  0.0253  0.0222  0.2735  0.07
Random 3   53  -0.0429  0.0052  0.0252  0.0248  0.0353  0.02

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).