Cortot 1951

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   37  0.5141  0.0039  0.0734  0.0732  0.0832  0.07
Bacha 1997   25  0.5840  0.0026  0.1426  0.1430  0.0826  0.11
Barbosa 1983   46  0.3949  0.0047  0.0547  0.0540  0.0647  0.05
Biret 1990   3  0.694  0.084  0.163  0.559  0.453  0.50
Block 1995   20  0.615  0.057  0.1314  0.3911  0.484  0.43
Brailowsky 1960   30  0.5512  0.0228  0.0732  0.0728  0.0831  0.07
Chiu 1999   32  0.5425  0.0033  0.0546  0.0547  0.0544  0.05
Clidat 1994   33  0.5233  0.0041  0.0829  0.0844  0.0538  0.06
Cohen 1997   6  0.6834  0.0010  0.157  0.5017  0.287  0.37
Cortot 1951   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Csalog 1996   14  0.6431  0.0018  0.0917  0.3828  0.0720  0.16
Czerny 1990   9  0.6715  0.018  0.148  0.4934  0.0617  0.17
Ezaki 2006   22  0.6020  0.0117  0.0919  0.3641  0.0524  0.13
Ferenczy 1958   40  0.4714  0.0130  0.0733  0.0742  0.0636  0.06
Fliere 1977   42  0.4546  0.0046  0.0736  0.0746  0.0535  0.06
Fou 1978   27  0.5730  0.0027  0.1227  0.1244  0.0530  0.08
Francois 1956   48  0.3738  0.0049  0.0739  0.0733  0.0733  0.07
Grinberg 1951   45  0.4443  0.0045  0.0548  0.0549  0.0449  0.04
Hatto 1993   35  0.5224  0.0131  0.0737  0.0748  0.0542  0.06
Hatto 1997   36  0.5150  0.0038  0.0830  0.0832  0.0829  0.08
Indjic 2001   34  0.5247  0.0037  0.0645  0.0637  0.0639  0.06
Jonas 1947   7  0.689  0.035  0.1410  0.4712  0.306  0.38
Kapell 1951   24  0.5913  0.0122  0.1021  0.3142  0.0621  0.14
Kiepura 1999   23  0.5935  0.0024  0.1123  0.2721  0.2611  0.26
Kushner 1989   19  0.616  0.0516  0.0925  0.2341  0.0625  0.12
Luisada 1991   38  0.5123  0.0140  0.0831  0.0840  0.0534  0.06
Lushtak 2004   29  0.5644  0.0035  0.0642  0.0646  0.0546  0.05
Magaloff 1978   47  0.3917  0.0143  0.0643  0.0632  0.0737  0.06
Meguri 1997   4  0.692  0.162  0.231  0.6630  0.0815  0.23
Milkina 1970   21  0.6018  0.0123  0.1415  0.3843  0.0522  0.14
Mohovich 1999   31  0.5536  0.0029  0.0735  0.0743  0.0640  0.06
Niedzielski 1931   1  0.723  0.153  0.154  0.5315  0.275  0.38
Ohlsson 1999   26  0.5819  0.0121  0.0820  0.3444  0.0623  0.14
Olejniczak 1990   12  0.6532  0.0012  0.1116  0.3831  0.0719  0.16
Osinska 1989   17  0.6322  0.0125  0.1324  0.2423  0.2413  0.24
Rangell 2001   8  0.6729  0.009  0.206  0.5136  0.0618  0.17
Richter 1976   49  0.3745  0.0048  0.0449  0.0446  0.0550  0.04
Rubinstein 1938   2  0.711  0.201  0.202  0.654  0.591  0.62
Rubinstein 1952   28  0.5626  0.0036  0.0641  0.0648  0.0548  0.05
Rubinstein 1961   16  0.6428  0.0019  0.1318  0.3717  0.329  0.34
Rubinstein 1966   18  0.6239  0.0020  0.0822  0.2820  0.2412  0.26
Shebanova 2002   15  0.648  0.0315  0.1112  0.4421  0.2310  0.32
Smidowicz 1948   13  0.6511  0.0214  0.1313  0.4128  0.0716  0.17
Smidowicz 1948b   11  0.6516  0.0113  0.0911  0.4525  0.1214  0.23
Smith 1975   44  0.4437  0.0034  0.0640  0.0641  0.0545  0.05
Sofronitsky 1949   41  0.4627  0.0032  0.0644  0.0620  0.1927  0.11
Sztompka 1959   5  0.697  0.046  0.145  0.515  0.662  0.58
Tomsic 1995   43  0.4542  0.0044  0.0738  0.0749  0.0541  0.06
Uninsky 1971   39  0.5021  0.0142  0.0828  0.0848  0.0443  0.06
Wasowski 1980   10  0.6610  0.0311  0.149  0.4820  0.248  0.34
Random 1   50  0.0648  0.0050  0.0350  0.0313  0.3328  0.10
Random 2   51  0.0151  0.0051  0.0251  0.0235  0.0551  0.03
Random 3   52  -0.0252  0.0052  0.0252  0.0234  0.0552  0.03

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).