Rubinstein 1939

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		57	0.24	16	0.01	71	0.03	74	0.03	90	0.02	78	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.28	26	0.00	39	0.05	42	0.13	86	0.02	47	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		59	0.24	58	0.00	53	0.04	60	0.04	88	0.02	65	0.03
Bacha 2000		21	0.37	63	0.00	29	0.06	35	0.21	69	0.04	30	0.09
Badura 1965		77	0.12	30	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	89	0.02	62	0.03
Barbosa 1983		44	0.29	9	0.03	30	0.08	31	0.29	79	0.02	37	0.08
Biret 1990		10	0.44	49	0.00	27	0.08	24	0.36	79	0.03	29	0.10
Blet 2003		28	0.35	42	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	87	0.02	58	0.03
Block 1995		81	0.08	72	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	89	0.02	82	0.02
Blumental 1952		51	0.27	80	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.18	76	0.03	41	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		38	0.31	61	0.00	25	0.07	19	0.38	73	0.03	25	0.11
Brailowsky 1960		4	0.51	5	0.05	4	0.22	3	0.56	28	0.28	4	0.40
Bunin 1987		35	0.31	19	0.01	55	0.05	55	0.05	88	0.02	66	0.03
Bunin 1987b		33	0.31	20	0.01	54	0.05	57	0.05	88	0.02	56	0.03
Chiu 1999		46	0.29	27	0.00	11	0.10	15	0.43	57	0.04	18	0.13
Cohen 1997		22	0.37	2	0.16	3	0.21	6	0.51	14	0.40	3	0.45
Cortot 1951		73	0.17	65	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	91	0.01	90	0.01
Csalog 1996		15	0.41	28	0.00	5	0.17	16	0.41	26	0.30	5	0.35
Czerny 1949		71	0.18	40	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	90	0.02	60	0.03
Czerny 1990		62	0.23	59	0.00	80	0.05	59	0.05	89	0.02	67	0.03
Duchoud 2007		31	0.34	73	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	89	0.01	79	0.02
Ezaki 2006		69	0.20	57	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	89	0.02	71	0.02
Falvay 1989		24	0.36	22	0.01	23	0.08	22	0.37	80	0.03	21	0.11
Farrell 1958		6	0.49	67	0.00	28	0.11	21	0.37	76	0.03	22	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		52	0.26	24	0.01	70	0.04	65	0.04	72	0.03	59	0.03
Fliere 1977		11	0.44	66	0.00	24	0.08	11	0.46	75	0.03	19	0.12
Fou 1978		12	0.43	6	0.04	8	0.13	5	0.51	45	0.12	11	0.25
Francois 1956		66	0.22	37	0.00	75	0.04	68	0.04	90	0.02	70	0.03
Friedman 1923		91	-0.20	85	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.01	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		90	-0.19	87	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.01	89	0.01
Friedman 1930		88	-0.12	46	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.01	87	0.01
Garcia 2007		76	0.14	54	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.02	80	0.02
Garcia 2007b		72	0.18	23	0.01	32	0.08	33	0.25	64	0.03	35	0.09
Gierzod 1998		40	0.30	36	0.00	50	0.05	51	0.05	89	0.02	61	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		49	0.27	10	0.02	20	0.07	38	0.18	88	0.02	45	0.06
Groot 1988		37	0.31	31	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.12	79	0.03	46	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		82	0.03	41	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	88	0.02	69	0.03
Hatto 1993		8	0.46	34	0.00	12	0.09	14	0.43	30	0.18	8	0.28
Hatto 1997		7	0.48	4	0.06	13	0.15	18	0.40	42	0.10	16	0.20
Horowitz 1949		32	0.34	32	0.00	34	0.07	30	0.30	84	0.03	31	0.09
Indjic 1988		5	0.49	11	0.02	10	0.10	12	0.44	31	0.17	9	0.27
Kapell 1951		42	0.30	21	0.01	48	0.06	46	0.06	85	0.02	55	0.03
Kissin 1993		65	0.22	68	0.00	38	0.05	37	0.18	79	0.03	39	0.07
Kushner 1989		34	0.31	89	0.00	60	0.05	48	0.05	88	0.02	54	0.03
Luisada 1991		9	0.45	18	0.01	15	0.11	13	0.43	73	0.03	20	0.11
Lushtak 2004		56	0.24	81	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.12	89	0.02	48	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		54	0.25	70	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	89	0.02	74	0.02
Magaloff 1978		43	0.29	75	0.00	45	0.07	40	0.13	65	0.03	42	0.06
Magin 1975		60	0.24	13	0.02	42	0.05	45	0.11	73	0.03	44	0.06
Michalowski 1933		87	-0.09	86	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	91	0.01	85	0.01
Milkina 1970		3	0.52	7	0.04	6	0.26	2	0.56	38	0.19	6	0.33
Mohovich 1999		45	0.29	82	0.00	63	0.04	71	0.04	85	0.03	64	0.03
Moravec 1969		27	0.35	14	0.01	36	0.10	34	0.23	81	0.02	38	0.07
Morozova 2008		17	0.40	35	0.00	14	0.07	20	0.37	83	0.02	34	0.09
Neighaus 1950		58	0.24	88	0.00	67	0.05	56	0.05	87	0.02	68	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.25	62	0.00	57	0.04	69	0.04	44	0.08	43	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		14	0.42	50	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.29	83	0.03	33	0.09
Osinska 1989		36	0.31	25	0.00	21	0.07	27	0.34	81	0.03	26	0.10
Pachmann 1927		25	0.36	17	0.01	7	0.13	10	0.46	41	0.14	12	0.25
Paderewski 1930		67	0.20	76	0.00	62	0.03	76	0.03	90	0.01	75	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		74	0.15	33	0.00	73	0.04	70	0.04	88	0.02	51	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		53	0.26	90	0.00	35	0.08	29	0.30	83	0.02	36	0.08
Poblocka 1999		39	0.30	77	0.00	46	0.05	47	0.05	61	0.04	50	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		79	0.11	71	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	90	0.01	73	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		64	0.22	15	0.01	56	0.05	58	0.05	85	0.02	52	0.03
Rangell 2001		26	0.36	29	0.00	22	0.08	17	0.41	56	0.05	17	0.14
Richter 1976		63	0.22	12	0.02	47	0.05	52	0.05	31	0.15	32	0.09
Rosen 1989		70	0.19	44	0.00	64	0.04	72	0.04	88	0.02	63	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		50	0.27	56	0.00	59	0.04	61	0.04	90	0.01	81	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		20	0.39	8	0.03	17	0.07	7	0.49	38	0.16	7	0.28
Rosenthal 1931b		23	0.37	51	0.00	18	0.07	9	0.48	37	0.14	10	0.26
Rosenthal 1931c		41	0.30	78	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.13	85	0.02	49	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		16	0.40	47	0.00	19	0.06	8	0.48	40	0.11	14	0.23
Rossi 2007		89	-0.17	84	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	91	0.01	84	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1952		2	0.57	3	0.14	2	0.24	1	0.58	17	0.47	2	0.52
Rubinstein 1966		1	0.67	1	0.21	1	0.21	4	0.55	11	0.49	1	0.52
Schilhawsky 1960		75	0.15	69	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	89	0.01	77	0.02
Shebanova 2002		29	0.34	91	0.00	9	0.13	26	0.34	39	0.15	13	0.23
Smith 1975		68	0.20	64	0.00	65	0.05	54	0.05	88	0.02	53	0.03
Sokolov 2002		61	0.23	48	0.00	79	0.03	73	0.03	90	0.01	72	0.02
Sztompka 1959		78	0.11	55	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	90	0.01	76	0.02
Tomsic 1995		47	0.28	45	0.00	66	0.04	64	0.04	72	0.03	57	0.03
Uninsky 1932		83	0.00	83	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	91	0.01	88	0.01
Uninsky 1971		80	0.09	38	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	91	0.01	86	0.01
Wasowski 1980		18	0.40	43	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.36	38	0.12	15	0.21
Zak 1937		13	0.43	74	0.00	16	0.08	23	0.36	73	0.03	27	0.10
Zak 1951		30	0.34	79	0.00	31	0.08	28	0.32	85	0.03	28	0.10
Average		19	0.39	52	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.16	86	0.03	40	0.07
Random 1		85	-0.04	39	0.00	52	0.05	53	0.05	27	0.23	24	0.11
Random 2		86	-0.04	53	0.00	51	0.05	49	0.05	26	0.23	23	0.11
Random 3		84	-0.04	60	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	87	0.02	83	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).