Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   22  0.6225  0.0019  0.0722  0.3344  0.0530  0.13
Ashkenazy 1981   10  0.6538  0.0012  0.1312  0.5141  0.0817  0.20
Beliavsky 2004   20  0.625  0.0213  0.1215  0.4329  0.189  0.28
BenOr 1989   21  0.6233  0.0034  0.1033  0.1058  0.0445  0.06
Biret 1990   14  0.6413  0.0015  0.1317  0.4131  0.1512  0.25
Blet 2003   40  0.5846  0.0038  0.0737  0.0754  0.0450  0.05
Block 1995   49  0.5743  0.0043  0.0739  0.0746  0.0644  0.06
Brailowsky 1960   13  0.6426  0.0020  0.0723  0.3319  0.435  0.38
Chiu 1999   55  0.5548  0.0053  0.0363  0.0362  0.0465  0.03
Clidat 1994   9  0.653  0.076  0.209  0.5726  0.1310  0.27
Cohen 1997   58  0.5331  0.0029  0.0631  0.1112  0.3915  0.21
Coop 1987   42  0.5824  0.0042  0.0738  0.0753  0.0639  0.06
Cortot 1951   33  0.5937  0.0039  0.0741  0.0734  0.0934  0.08
Czerny 1949   12  0.657  0.0111  0.1918  0.3748  0.0724  0.16
Czerny 1949b   11  0.658  0.0110  0.1711  0.5328  0.266  0.37
Ezaki 2006   60  0.5359  0.0061  0.0453  0.0460  0.0556  0.04
Falvay 1989   56  0.5412  0.0060  0.0459  0.0458  0.0558  0.04
Ferenczy 1958   53  0.5665  0.0048  0.0456  0.0441  0.0651  0.05
Fiorentino 1962   36  0.5961  0.0046  0.0458  0.0459  0.0564  0.04
Fliere 1977   5  0.6717  0.008  0.1210  0.5549  0.0619  0.18
Fou 1978   44  0.5740  0.0037  0.0742  0.0744  0.0736  0.07
Francois 1956   62  0.5141  0.0062  0.0449  0.0447  0.0655  0.05
Hatto 1997   19  0.6327  0.0025  0.0920  0.3435  0.0823  0.16
Horowitz 1971   15  0.6314  0.0017  0.1014  0.4624  0.297  0.37
Horowitz 1985   30  0.6039  0.0030  0.0629  0.1312  0.4711  0.25
Indjic 2001   18  0.6323  0.0023  0.1116  0.4356  0.0525  0.15
Kapell 1951   48  0.5719  0.0031  0.0632  0.1158  0.0437  0.07
Kiepura 1999   41  0.5856  0.0056  0.0362  0.0340  0.0657  0.04
Kilenyi 1937   54  0.5566  0.0054  0.0457  0.0450  0.0652  0.05
Kissin 1993   17  0.6321  0.0014  0.148  0.5755  0.0521  0.17
Kitain 1937   59  0.5311  0.0135  0.0644  0.066  0.5520  0.18
Kushner 1990   29  0.6015  0.0018  0.0725  0.3047  0.0629  0.13
Levy 1951   25  0.6128  0.0033  0.0740  0.0732  0.1033  0.08
Luisada 1990   46  0.5722  0.0055  0.0460  0.0451  0.0653  0.05
Lushtak 2004   38  0.5960  0.0041  0.0836  0.0856  0.0543  0.06
Lympany 1968   26  0.6110  0.0126  0.1021  0.3353  0.0528  0.13
Magaloff 1977   43  0.5844  0.0045  0.0454  0.0456  0.0561  0.04
Magaloff 1977b   52  0.5649  0.0052  0.0451  0.0456  0.0563  0.04
Magin 1975   51  0.5736  0.0058  0.0547  0.0559  0.0459  0.04
Milkina 1970   4  0.696  0.024  0.294  0.6515  0.463  0.55
Mohovich 1999   24  0.6116  0.0016  0.1013  0.4656  0.0427  0.14
Nadelmann 1956   6  0.679  0.015  0.255  0.6221  0.304  0.43
Ohlsson 1999   47  0.5720  0.0049  0.0645  0.0653  0.0549  0.05
Olejniczac 1990   34  0.5950  0.0047  0.0743  0.0758  0.0542  0.06
Olejniczak 1991   50  0.5762  0.0051  0.0548  0.0554  0.0648  0.05
Osinska 1989   7  0.6629  0.009  0.136  0.6150  0.0618  0.19
Paderewski 1912   31  0.5958  0.0027  0.1224  0.3143  0.0626  0.14
Perahia 1994   37  0.5930  0.0028  0.0728  0.1824  0.3014  0.23
Perlemuter 1986   32  0.5954  0.0036  0.0835  0.0857  0.0540  0.06
Poblocka 1999   35  0.5957  0.0044  0.0450  0.0445  0.0646  0.05
Rangell 2001   57  0.5452  0.0050  0.0455  0.0453  0.0654  0.05
Risler 1920   63  0.4935  0.0063  0.0646  0.0661  0.0447  0.05
Rosen 1989   45  0.5742  0.0057  0.0452  0.0459  0.0462  0.04
Rubinstein 1939   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Rubinstein 1952   3  0.724  0.053  0.433  0.799  0.592  0.68
Rubinstein 1966   1  0.751  0.461  0.452  0.845  0.751  0.79
Rummel 1943   28  0.6045  0.0024  0.0826  0.2921  0.298  0.29
Shebanova 2002   39  0.5847  0.0040  0.0834  0.0860  0.0541  0.06
Smith 1975   8  0.6618  0.007  0.197  0.5842  0.0716  0.20
Szpilman 1948   23  0.6134  0.0032  0.0630  0.1155  0.0535  0.07
Uninsky 1971   27  0.6051  0.0022  0.0927  0.2762  0.0432  0.10
Wasowski 1980   16  0.6332  0.0021  0.0919  0.3641  0.0722  0.16
Weissenberg 1971   61  0.5364  0.0059  0.0461  0.0462  0.0460  0.04
Average   2  0.742  0.282  0.521  0.9254  0.0613  0.23
Random 1    66  -0.0155  0.0066  0.0166  0.0113  0.3138  0.06
Random 2   64  0.0253  0.0064  0.0264  0.0243  0.0466  0.03
Random 3   65  0.0163  0.0065  0.0265  0.025  0.5731  0.11

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).