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