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		37	0.43	23	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	87	0.02	74	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		44	0.42	19	0.01	48	0.07	46	0.07	70	0.03	48	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		48	0.41	21	0.00	60	0.03	75	0.03	89	0.02	89	0.02
Bacha 2000		19	0.49	46	0.00	15	0.06	19	0.35	58	0.05	16	0.13
Badura 1965		79	0.26	18	0.01	71	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03
Barbosa 1983		32	0.45	26	0.00	27	0.06	33	0.27	58	0.05	21	0.12
Biret 1990		13	0.54	58	0.00	23	0.13	18	0.35	78	0.04	24	0.12
Blet 2003		21	0.48	55	0.00	35	0.06	34	0.24	69	0.03	36	0.08
Block 1995		82	0.24	79	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	65	0.04	60	0.04
Blumental 1952		22	0.48	70	0.00	24	0.08	25	0.30	86	0.02	37	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		59	0.37	56	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	79	0.03	61	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		11	0.55	34	0.00	8	0.14	7	0.43	33	0.25	5	0.33
Bunin 1987		75	0.29	40	0.00	82	0.04	70	0.04	88	0.02	79	0.03
Bunin 1987b		76	0.28	39	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.02	85	0.02
Chiu 1999		33	0.45	68	0.00	26	0.07	31	0.28	64	0.04	27	0.11
Cohen 1997		17	0.51	5	0.02	3	0.21	6	0.46	5	0.49	3	0.47
Cortot 1951		67	0.35	87	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		38	0.43	65	0.00	7	0.11	17	0.36	27	0.27	6	0.31
Czerny 1949		71	0.33	59	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	83	0.03	72	0.03
Czerny 1990		29	0.46	83	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	71	0.04	43	0.07
Duchoud 2007		55	0.38	54	0.00	69	0.04	62	0.04	88	0.02	75	0.03
Ezaki 2006		41	0.43	41	0.00	59	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03	64	0.03
Falvay 1989		27	0.47	45	0.00	16	0.08	30	0.29	51	0.06	17	0.13
Farrell 1958		3	0.61	44	0.00	9	0.18	11	0.39	67	0.04	19	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.37	38	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	41	0.08	46	0.06
Fliere 1977		12	0.54	71	0.00	18	0.07	8	0.42	74	0.03	25	0.11
Fou 1978		14	0.54	24	0.00	5	0.14	4	0.50	43	0.11	7	0.23
Francois 1956		64	0.36	52	0.00	63	0.04	65	0.04	79	0.03	83	0.03
Friedman 1923		87	0.19	89	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1923b		86	0.19	90	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03
Friedman 1930		84	0.22	67	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.03	87	0.02
Garcia 2007		65	0.36	76	0.00	66	0.04	73	0.04	88	0.02	76	0.03
Garcia 2007b		60	0.37	73	0.00	33	0.05	35	0.23	62	0.04	32	0.10
Gierzod 1998		31	0.45	27	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	72	0.04	42	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		57	0.38	63	0.00	49	0.05	51	0.05	73	0.03	62	0.04
Groot 1988		35	0.43	11	0.01	39	0.06	36	0.19	79	0.03	38	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		77	0.28	50	0.00	72	0.02	87	0.02	59	0.04	82	0.03
Hatto 1993		9	0.56	37	0.00	20	0.10	15	0.36	43	0.10	10	0.19
Hatto 1997		6	0.58	3	0.07	21	0.14	29	0.29	45	0.09	15	0.16
Horowitz 1949		56	0.38	28	0.00	65	0.05	58	0.05	63	0.04	57	0.04
Indjic 1988		5	0.58	15	0.01	19	0.06	16	0.36	44	0.09	12	0.18
Kapell 1951		42	0.42	7	0.02	13	0.06	42	0.16	88	0.02	45	0.06
Kissin 1993		36	0.43	36	0.00	37	0.05	32	0.27	66	0.04	31	0.10
Kushner 1989		30	0.46	57	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	76	0.03	56	0.04
Luisada 1991		4	0.60	14	0.01	6	0.12	5	0.47	47	0.06	14	0.17
Lushtak 2004		20	0.49	48	0.00	25	0.09	20	0.33	66	0.04	30	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		78	0.27	47	0.00	80	0.04	71	0.04	77	0.03	69	0.03
Magaloff 1978		26	0.47	42	0.00	29	0.09	22	0.31	71	0.04	28	0.11
Magin 1975		63	0.37	6	0.02	50	0.05	50	0.05	72	0.03	55	0.04
Michalowski 1933		88	0.09	91	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.02	86	0.02
Milkina 1970		7	0.57	4	0.03	4	0.23	3	0.59	34	0.20	4	0.34
Mohovich 1999		23	0.48	49	0.00	34	0.05	24	0.30	61	0.05	23	0.12
Moravec 1969		45	0.41	25	0.00	40	0.06	38	0.18	80	0.03	39	0.07
Morozova 2008		15	0.53	10	0.01	22	0.11	28	0.30	82	0.03	35	0.09
Neighaus 1950		54	0.38	72	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	85	0.03	81	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		51	0.40	12	0.01	52	0.05	53	0.05	85	0.03	54	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.48	8	0.01	36	0.07	41	0.17	83	0.03	41	0.07
Osinska 1989		18	0.49	53	0.00	10	0.11	10	0.39	80	0.03	26	0.11
Pachmann 1927		52	0.39	74	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.17	58	0.05	34	0.09
Paderewski 1930		58	0.38	77	0.00	53	0.05	52	0.05	59	0.04	58	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.39	20	0.01	62	0.05	57	0.05	62	0.04	51	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		74	0.29	64	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	78	0.03	67	0.03
Poblocka 1999		62	0.37	9	0.01	56	0.05	59	0.05	73	0.04	52	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.36	69	0.00	61	0.04	60	0.04	77	0.03	68	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		46	0.41	17	0.01	58	0.04	69	0.04	82	0.03	66	0.03
Rangell 2001		73	0.30	35	0.00	51	0.06	47	0.06	77	0.03	63	0.04
Richter 1976		80	0.26	22	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	42	0.12	40	0.07
Rosen 1989		49	0.41	32	0.00	46	0.06	49	0.06	65	0.04	49	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.35	51	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	68	0.03	77	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		39	0.43	82	0.00	31	0.05	21	0.32	40	0.13	9	0.20
Rosenthal 1931b		43	0.42	85	0.00	32	0.08	23	0.31	38	0.10	13	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		50	0.40	62	0.00	42	0.08	37	0.18	65	0.03	44	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		34	0.44	75	0.00	28	0.06	27	0.30	37	0.15	8	0.21
Rossi 2007		85	0.20	81	0.00	77	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.04	53	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1952		2	0.67	1	0.36	1	0.35	2	0.63	6	0.60	2	0.61
Rubinstein 1966		1	0.76	2	0.30	2	0.44	1	0.65	9	0.60	1	0.62
Schilhawsky 1960		72	0.32	84	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	89	0.03	71	0.03
Shebanova 2002		28	0.47	16	0.01	12	0.10	14	0.36	71	0.04	22	0.12
Smith 1975		47	0.41	43	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.12	89	0.02	47	0.05
Sokolov 2002		68	0.35	80	0.00	73	0.03	85	0.03	70	0.03	65	0.03
Sztompka 1959		70	0.34	33	0.00	78	0.05	54	0.05	83	0.03	59	0.04
Tomsic 1995		40	0.43	31	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.18	49	0.05	33	0.09
Uninsky 1932		83	0.23	78	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Uninsky 1971		81	0.24	60	0.00	83	0.04	72	0.04	83	0.03	70	0.03
Wasowski 1980		25	0.48	13	0.01	30	0.06	26	0.30	57	0.05	18	0.12
Zak 1937		8	0.57	30	0.00	11	0.09	9	0.40	46	0.08	11	0.18
Zak 1951		16	0.52	66	0.00	14	0.06	13	0.37	71	0.04	20	0.12
Average		10	0.56	29	0.00	17	0.06	12	0.38	84	0.03	29	0.11
Random 1		90	-0.11	88	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	36	0.24	50	0.05
Random 2		89	-0.08	61	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	48	0.05	73	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.13	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01	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).