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		24	0.58	19	0.01	52	0.06	54	0.06	81	0.03	59	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		79	0.21	64	0.00	75	0.03	70	0.03	88	0.02	79	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		55	0.42	37	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	72	0.03	47	0.06
Bacha 2000		20	0.63	47	0.00	22	0.10	24	0.40	14	0.42	15	0.41
Badura 1965		57	0.41	39	0.00	49	0.04	63	0.04	75	0.03	68	0.03
Barbosa 1983		43	0.52	22	0.01	35	0.06	32	0.21	52	0.04	37	0.09
Biret 1990		38	0.53	32	0.00	36	0.06	33	0.20	62	0.04	38	0.09
Blet 2003		48	0.51	78	0.00	63	0.05	56	0.05	69	0.04	58	0.04
Block 1995		44	0.52	54	0.00	33	0.06	41	0.13	42	0.11	32	0.12
Blumental 1952		75	0.26	80	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	86	0.02	85	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.63	33	0.00	24	0.10	19	0.45	38	0.17	20	0.28
Brailowsky 1960		9	0.72	29	0.00	11	0.11	9	0.54	8	0.46	11	0.50
Bunin 1987		65	0.38	9	0.03	78	0.05	60	0.05	87	0.02	69	0.03
Bunin 1987b		64	0.38	27	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	87	0.02	75	0.02
Chiu 1999		41	0.52	30	0.00	19	0.10	18	0.46	31	0.22	17	0.32
Cohen 1997		46	0.51	26	0.00	10	0.08	15	0.49	2	0.54	10	0.51
Cortot 1951		73	0.32	70	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.01	89	0.01
Csalog 1996		8	0.73	3	0.11	3	0.15	5	0.59	1	0.61	2	0.60
Czerny 1949		62	0.40	66	0.00	72	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.02	82	0.02
Czerny 1990		45	0.51	73	0.00	64	0.07	47	0.07	83	0.03	51	0.05
Duchoud 2007		63	0.39	56	0.00	68	0.03	71	0.03	86	0.02	83	0.02
Ezaki 2006		35	0.54	40	0.00	58	0.06	53	0.06	44	0.09	40	0.07
Falvay 1989		2	0.79	15	0.01	6	0.12	3	0.63	10	0.43	7	0.52
Farrell 1958		39	0.53	86	0.00	61	0.07	49	0.07	87	0.02	57	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		60	0.40	67	0.00	80	0.03	68	0.03	64	0.03	67	0.03
Fliere 1977		13	0.68	88	0.00	17	0.11	14	0.50	66	0.04	30	0.14
Fou 1978		6	0.74	2	0.15	2	0.18	4	0.62	5	0.52	4	0.57
Francois 1956		25	0.58	34	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.10	65	0.04	48	0.06
Friedman 1923		91	-0.38	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		90	-0.36	90	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	91	0.01	88	0.01
Friedman 1930		89	-0.14	45	0.00	89	0.03	73	0.03	88	0.01	80	0.02
Garcia 2007		81	0.19	75	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	88	0.01	87	0.01
Garcia 2007b		85	-0.03	69	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Gierzod 1998		36	0.53	57	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.13	74	0.03	45	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		30	0.56	14	0.01	34	0.06	39	0.13	58	0.04	42	0.07
Groot 1988		7	0.73	8	0.03	16	0.11	16	0.48	24	0.27	16	0.36
Harasiewicz 1955		72	0.33	11	0.01	57	0.05	57	0.05	67	0.03	60	0.04
Hatto 1993		82	0.17	36	0.00	40	0.05	38	0.14	86	0.02	53	0.05
Hatto 1997		78	0.22	43	0.00	41	0.05	37	0.14	85	0.02	50	0.05
Horowitz 1949		27	0.57	44	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.34	48	0.06	31	0.14
Indjic 1988		80	0.21	41	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.15	74	0.03	41	0.07
Kapell 1951		56	0.42	48	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	89	0.02	74	0.02
Kissin 1993		3	0.76	10	0.02	5	0.11	1	0.63	9	0.50	5	0.56
Kushner 1989		34	0.55	87	0.00	46	0.04	64	0.04	82	0.03	63	0.03
Luisada 1991		49	0.51	42	0.00	30	0.06	29	0.27	67	0.04	34	0.10
Lushtak 2004		51	0.50	7	0.05	29	0.06	31	0.22	38	0.15	25	0.18
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.60	25	0.00	53	0.07	50	0.07	57	0.04	49	0.05
Magaloff 1978		15	0.66	18	0.01	20	0.10	13	0.50	43	0.10	24	0.22
Magin 1975		66	0.38	53	0.00	50	0.05	61	0.05	87	0.02	62	0.03
Michalowski 1933		84	-0.02	74	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	90	0.01	77	0.02
Milkina 1970		1	0.82	1	0.21	1	0.20	2	0.63	2	0.60	1	0.61
Mohovich 1999		11	0.70	16	0.01	23	0.12	21	0.43	37	0.12	23	0.23
Moravec 1969		22	0.61	23	0.01	38	0.05	30	0.23	43	0.08	29	0.14
Morozova 2008		61	0.40	81	0.00	48	0.04	65	0.04	85	0.02	66	0.03
Neighaus 1950		40	0.53	68	0.00	55	0.08	46	0.08	71	0.03	52	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		54	0.45	61	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	69	0.03	56	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		31	0.56	6	0.06	9	0.09	26	0.31	33	0.18	22	0.24
Osinska 1989		19	0.64	12	0.01	21	0.09	22	0.43	47	0.05	28	0.15
Pachmann 1927		18	0.65	21	0.01	13	0.12	12	0.51	5	0.58	6	0.54
Paderewski 1930		33	0.55	62	0.00	59	0.06	55	0.06	77	0.02	64	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		47	0.51	49	0.00	54	0.07	48	0.07	38	0.12	36	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		28	0.56	60	0.00	25	0.12	23	0.42	36	0.15	21	0.25
Poblocka 1999		29	0.56	50	0.00	44	0.05	45	0.09	49	0.04	43	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		70	0.34	46	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.02	73	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		76	0.26	91	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.02	72	0.02
Rangell 2001		17	0.66	52	0.00	12	0.10	8	0.54	8	0.41	12	0.47
Richter 1976		42	0.52	59	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	43	0.07	44	0.06
Rosen 1989		37	0.53	71	0.00	39	0.06	42	0.12	80	0.03	46	0.06
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.37	38	0.00	67	0.03	69	0.03	85	0.02	84	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		58	0.41	82	0.00	32	0.07	35	0.18	39	0.15	26	0.16
Rosenthal 1931b		59	0.40	79	0.00	31	0.06	34	0.18	36	0.15	27	0.16
Rosenthal 1931c		53	0.47	83	0.00	56	0.06	51	0.06	79	0.03	61	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		32	0.55	76	0.00	26	0.10	27	0.31	26	0.27	19	0.29
Rossi 2007		83	0.15	35	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.02	71	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		26	0.57	4	0.07	4	0.19	17	0.47	1	0.58	8	0.52
Rubinstein 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1966		4	0.76	20	0.01	8	0.17	6	0.58	4	0.63	3	0.60
Schilhawsky 1960		68	0.37	55	0.00	69	0.03	72	0.03	79	0.03	65	0.03
Shebanova 2002		5	0.76	13	0.01	7	0.16	7	0.55	10	0.49	9	0.52
Smith 1975		52	0.48	51	0.00	60	0.06	52	0.06	81	0.03	55	0.04
Sokolov 2002		67	0.37	24	0.00	76	0.02	83	0.02	87	0.02	70	0.02
Sztompka 1959		74	0.27	63	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02	76	0.02
Tomsic 1995		12	0.70	5	0.06	18	0.10	20	0.45	29	0.23	18	0.32
Uninsky 1932		77	0.23	77	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	81	0.02
Uninsky 1971		71	0.34	31	0.00	82	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.02	78	0.02
Wasowski 1980		50	0.50	58	0.00	47	0.05	62	0.05	79	0.03	54	0.04
Zak 1937		10	0.70	65	0.00	14	0.19	10	0.53	17	0.35	13	0.43
Zak 1951		14	0.67	28	0.00	15	0.15	11	0.51	22	0.34	14	0.42
Average		16	0.66	17	0.01	28	0.07	28	0.29	58	0.04	33	0.11
Random 1		88	-0.08	84	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	36	0.18	39	0.08
Random 2		86	-0.05	72	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	25	0.25	35	0.10
Random 3		87	-0.06	85	0.00	87	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.02	86	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).