Rubinstein 1966

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		18	0.41	49	0.00	15	0.10	17	0.45	11	0.59	13	0.52
Anderszewski 2003		3	0.53	2	0.18	2	0.45	3	0.73	1	0.86	1	0.79
Ashkenazy 1981		35	0.36	53	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.20	54	0.07	55	0.12
Bacha 2000		40	0.35	37	0.00	36	0.05	38	0.15	17	0.50	32	0.27
Badura 1965		42	0.35	25	0.00	47	0.04	78	0.04	12	0.55	47	0.15
Barbosa 1983		4	0.50	3	0.05	5	0.16	5	0.58	5	0.68	4	0.63
Biret 1990		79	0.22	76	0.00	79	0.05	51	0.05	44	0.12	60	0.08
Blet 2003		72	0.25	82	0.00	71	0.07	46	0.07	59	0.06	67	0.06
Block 1995		19	0.41	62	0.00	26	0.07	25	0.31	32	0.38	26	0.34
Blumental 1952		20	0.41	6	0.03	16	0.10	14	0.47	16	0.56	15	0.51
Boshniakovich 1969		55	0.32	72	0.00	28	0.08	31	0.25	31	0.34	31	0.29
Brailowsky 1960		61	0.31	7	0.01	34	0.05	41	0.11	26	0.46	37	0.22
Bunin 1987		87	0.13	84	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.04	88	0.03
Bunin 1987b		86	0.13	85	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	65	0.05	79	0.04
Chiu 1999		28	0.38	66	0.00	67	0.06	48	0.06	55	0.07	64	0.06
Cohen 1997		30	0.37	48	0.00	25	0.07	29	0.26	15	0.56	25	0.38
Cortot 1951		69	0.28	86	0.00	73	0.04	73	0.04	55	0.05	84	0.04
Csalog 1996		68	0.28	20	0.00	64	0.05	57	0.05	35	0.26	57	0.11
Czerny 1949		71	0.26	73	0.00	70	0.05	53	0.05	32	0.53	45	0.16
Czerny 1990		48	0.33	74	0.00	55	0.05	59	0.05	38	0.33	51	0.13
Duchoud 2007		27	0.38	41	0.00	53	0.04	72	0.04	48	0.08	68	0.06
Ezaki 2006		47	0.33	42	0.00	57	0.05	52	0.05	32	0.32	50	0.13
Falvay 1989		37	0.35	30	0.00	29	0.08	30	0.25	22	0.37	29	0.30
Farrell 1958		63	0.30	14	0.01	43	0.05	44	0.09	36	0.27	43	0.16
Ferenczy 1958		45	0.34	23	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.25	11	0.78	19	0.44
Fliere 1977		50	0.33	77	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.05	75	0.04
Fou 1978		5	0.48	16	0.01	4	0.31	4	0.63	5	0.65	3	0.64
Francois 1956		46	0.33	67	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.16	18	0.61	28	0.31
Friedman 1923		77	0.22	87	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	69	0.04	89	0.03
Friedman 1923b		83	0.20	78	0.00	84	0.03	88	0.03	68	0.05	83	0.04
Friedman 1930		80	0.21	59	0.00	83	0.02	89	0.02	64	0.05	87	0.03
Garcia 2007		13	0.43	4	0.05	6	0.15	13	0.48	14	0.57	14	0.52
Garcia 2007b		85	0.16	79	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	55	0.06	85	0.04
Gierzod 1998		60	0.31	45	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.13	20	0.57	34	0.27
Gornostaeva 1994		33	0.37	50	0.00	46	0.04	68	0.04	25	0.53	48	0.15
Groot 1988		32	0.37	63	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.07	50	0.07	63	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.46	64	0.00	9	0.10	9	0.49	14	0.52	17	0.50
Hatto 1993		16	0.42	18	0.00	17	0.08	23	0.36	37	0.25	30	0.30
Hatto 1997		11	0.43	15	0.01	18	0.11	18	0.43	13	0.51	18	0.47
Horowitz 1949		73	0.25	80	0.00	74	0.05	62	0.05	65	0.05	71	0.05
Indjic 1988		29	0.37	17	0.01	19	0.10	27	0.27	41	0.20	35	0.23
Kapell 1951		23	0.40	54	0.00	27	0.09	24	0.32	27	0.33	27	0.32
Kissin 1993		43	0.35	51	0.00	24	0.09	21	0.37	27	0.51	20	0.43
Kushner 1989		10	0.44	44	0.00	12	0.08	15	0.46	17	0.55	16	0.50
Luisada 1991		26	0.38	21	0.00	31	0.08	33	0.23	33	0.32	33	0.27
Lushtak 2004		8	0.45	19	0.00	7	0.15	8	0.50	8	0.59	11	0.54
Malcuzynski 1961		62	0.31	46	0.00	65	0.07	47	0.07	64	0.05	65	0.06
Magaloff 1978		70	0.27	60	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	53	0.05	77	0.04
Magin 1975		78	0.22	70	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	59	0.06	78	0.04
Michalowski 1933		76	0.23	56	0.00	78	0.05	64	0.05	62	0.06	73	0.05
Milkina 1970		14	0.42	11	0.01	8	0.09	6	0.53	4	0.72	5	0.62
Mohovich 1999		2	0.54	5	0.04	3	0.40	2	0.77	1	0.81	2	0.79
Moravec 1969		36	0.36	10	0.01	38	0.06	37	0.15	27	0.33	36	0.22
Morozova 2008		22	0.40	28	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.10	67	0.05	62	0.07
Neighaus 1950		17	0.41	9	0.01	14	0.10	10	0.48	24	0.36	21	0.42
Niedzielski 1931		44	0.34	38	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.15	30	0.27	39	0.20
Ohlsson 1999		59	0.31	8	0.01	59	0.04	71	0.04	61	0.04	81	0.04
Osinska 1989		56	0.32	47	0.00	52	0.05	63	0.05	32	0.40	49	0.14
Pachmann 1927		81	0.21	81	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	74	0.05	80	0.04
Paderewski 1930		58	0.32	68	0.00	50	0.05	66	0.05	40	0.26	56	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		51	0.33	43	0.00	58	0.06	50	0.06	42	0.26	53	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.28	36	0.00	72	0.05	55	0.05	45	0.09	61	0.07
Poblocka 1999		57	0.32	27	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.14	35	0.27	40	0.19
Rabcewiczowa 1932		21	0.41	57	0.00	20	0.08	16	0.46	13	0.72	7	0.58
Rachmaninoff 1923		66	0.29	88	0.00	68	0.05	61	0.05	49	0.05	70	0.05
Rangell 2001		9	0.44	24	0.00	10	0.08	7	0.51	6	0.62	8	0.56
Richter 1976		34	0.36	39	0.00	66	0.05	54	0.05	49	0.08	66	0.06
Rosen 1989		12	0.43	22	0.00	23	0.09	22	0.37	29	0.43	24	0.40
Rosenthal 1930		41	0.35	26	0.00	56	0.04	74	0.04	41	0.25	58	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		31	0.37	12	0.01	21	0.08	20	0.40	12	0.68	12	0.52
Rosenthal 1931b		39	0.35	52	0.00	32	0.08	26	0.27	14	0.66	22	0.42
Rosenthal 1931c		38	0.35	65	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	16	0.55	42	0.17
Rosenthal 1931d		75	0.24	55	0.00	61	0.04	67	0.04	22	0.45	52	0.13
Rossi 2007		88	0.05	75	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	49	0.05	76	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		6	0.46	13	0.01	11	0.08	12	0.48	5	0.63	9	0.55
Rubinstein 1952		15	0.42	34	0.00	13	0.10	11	0.48	7	0.64	10	0.55
Rubinstein 1966		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Schilhawsky 1960		84	0.18	71	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	52	0.05	82	0.04
Shebanova 2002		25	0.39	31	0.00	30	0.08	28	0.26	45	0.18	38	0.22
Smith 1975		53	0.33	29	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	23	0.46	46	0.15
Sokolov 2002		82	0.20	89	0.00	80	0.04	76	0.04	65	0.03	86	0.03
Sztompka 1959		54	0.33	69	0.00	60	0.05	65	0.05	68	0.05	72	0.05
Tomsic 1995		65	0.29	83	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.09	20	0.32	41	0.17
Uninsky 1932		64	0.30	35	0.00	69	0.05	56	0.05	58	0.05	74	0.05
Uninsky 1971		24	0.40	32	0.00	22	0.09	19	0.41	18	0.40	23	0.40
Wasowski 1980		74	0.24	61	0.00	77	0.04	75	0.04	55	0.06	69	0.05
Zak 1937		52	0.33	58	0.00	48	0.04	77	0.04	32	0.34	54	0.12
Zak 1951		49	0.33	40	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	24	0.42	44	0.16
Average		1	0.62	1	0.48	1	0.47	1	0.81	22	0.44	6	0.60
Random 1		90	-0.05	90	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	80	0.02	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.03	33	0.00	89	0.03	87	0.03	32	0.23	59	0.08
Random 3		91	-0.12	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.02	91	0.01

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).