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		27	0.62	31	0.00	28	0.08	32	0.27	55	0.04	41	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.53	20	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.03	81	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		41	0.56	32	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	82	0.03	71	0.04
Bacha 2000		22	0.64	13	0.01	35	0.06	29	0.29	40	0.17	25	0.22
Badura 1965		66	0.46	52	0.00	56	0.04	65	0.04	60	0.04	68	0.04
Barbosa 1983		26	0.62	28	0.00	13	0.18	16	0.51	7	0.55	7	0.53
Biret 1990		13	0.67	45	0.00	25	0.11	27	0.37	58	0.05	34	0.14
Blet 2003		15	0.66	47	0.00	20	0.08	17	0.45	27	0.27	14	0.35
Block 1995		75	0.41	29	0.00	52	0.05	60	0.05	54	0.04	69	0.04
Blumental 1952		51	0.51	68	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	63	0.03	70	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		52	0.51	81	0.00	53	0.06	47	0.06	57	0.05	54	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		23	0.63	69	0.00	37	0.08	33	0.27	41	0.20	24	0.23
Bunin 1987		81	0.35	82	0.00	85	0.04	73	0.04	81	0.03	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		82	0.34	74	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	79	0.03	89	0.02
Chiu 1999		36	0.58	30	0.00	19	0.07	22	0.41	27	0.27	16	0.33
Cohen 1997		61	0.48	39	0.00	31	0.08	37	0.23	11	0.38	21	0.30
Cortot 1951		56	0.51	77	0.00	71	0.04	66	0.04	77	0.04	73	0.04
Csalog 1996		49	0.53	44	0.00	29	0.07	31	0.27	13	0.43	15	0.34
Czerny 1949		62	0.47	48	0.00	51	0.05	52	0.05	54	0.05	53	0.05
Czerny 1990		18	0.66	7	0.03	18	0.07	28	0.35	43	0.09	28	0.18
Duchoud 2007		57	0.49	57	0.00	69	0.04	69	0.04	80	0.03	84	0.03
Ezaki 2006		16	0.66	22	0.00	15	0.13	15	0.52	36	0.17	18	0.30
Falvay 1989		24	0.63	24	0.00	27	0.10	26	0.37	26	0.38	12	0.37
Farrell 1958		9	0.68	37	0.00	24	0.08	20	0.42	32	0.22	19	0.30
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.51	14	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.04
Fliere 1977		6	0.70	88	0.00	11	0.13	6	0.63	47	0.06	27	0.19
Fou 1978		12	0.68	12	0.01	3	0.21	5	0.65	6	0.51	5	0.58
Francois 1956		40	0.57	21	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.16	52	0.05	46	0.09
Friedman 1923		85	0.29	75	0.00	88	0.04	77	0.04	75	0.05	75	0.04
Friedman 1923b		86	0.29	86	0.00	87	0.04	80	0.04	78	0.04	72	0.04
Friedman 1930		83	0.33	72	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	73	0.04	83	0.03
Garcia 2007		77	0.40	71	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.03	85	0.03
Garcia 2007b		87	0.27	80	0.00	80	0.04	68	0.04	85	0.02	88	0.03
Gierzod 1998		39	0.57	42	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	77	0.03	66	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		44	0.54	50	0.00	40	0.07	43	0.15	50	0.05	45	0.09
Groot 1988		8	0.69	5	0.05	10	0.13	3	0.72	5	0.56	2	0.63
Harasiewicz 1955		76	0.40	46	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	63	0.04	56	0.05
Hatto 1993		37	0.58	36	0.00	39	0.08	38	0.23	41	0.12	30	0.17
Hatto 1997		28	0.62	17	0.00	33	0.08	35	0.24	57	0.05	38	0.11
Horowitz 1949		63	0.47	70	0.00	58	0.05	54	0.05	76	0.03	61	0.04
Indjic 1988		31	0.60	35	0.00	38	0.07	36	0.23	56	0.05	37	0.11
Kapell 1951		46	0.54	25	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	44	0.08	40	0.10
Kissin 1993		25	0.63	18	0.00	17	0.11	14	0.53	36	0.16	22	0.29
Kushner 1989		17	0.66	38	0.00	23	0.08	19	0.44	67	0.04	36	0.13
Luisada 1991		11	0.68	53	0.00	14	0.18	12	0.56	31	0.32	10	0.42
Lushtak 2004		20	0.65	55	0.00	16	0.12	18	0.44	31	0.20	20	0.30
Malcuzynski 1961		71	0.44	78	0.00	76	0.04	63	0.04	51	0.04	60	0.04
Magaloff 1978		29	0.61	56	0.00	36	0.07	30	0.29	51	0.06	35	0.13
Magin 1975		72	0.44	58	0.00	72	0.03	86	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03
Michalowski 1933		88	0.21	83	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	76	0.03	80	0.03
Milkina 1970		5	0.71	11	0.01	5	0.19	7	0.62	19	0.38	8	0.49
Mohovich 1999		3	0.74	4	0.05	6	0.19	2	0.75	19	0.45	6	0.58
Moravec 1969		55	0.51	34	0.00	66	0.04	79	0.04	59	0.04	57	0.04
Morozova 2008		32	0.60	33	0.00	21	0.11	23	0.40	46	0.05	33	0.14
Neighaus 1950		34	0.59	43	0.00	34	0.07	34	0.24	75	0.04	42	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		69	0.45	84	0.00	74	0.04	71	0.04	68	0.03	77	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.61	19	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.14	51	0.05	47	0.08
Osinska 1989		10	0.68	8	0.03	4	0.18	10	0.57	19	0.41	9	0.48
Pachmann 1927		50	0.52	67	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	45	0.08	48	0.06
Paderewski 1930		42	0.56	60	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	47	0.05	52	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		38	0.57	23	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.20	39	0.11	31	0.15
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.45	49	0.00	54	0.04	62	0.04	54	0.06	51	0.05
Poblocka 1999		53	0.51	26	0.00	61	0.05	51	0.05	78	0.03	58	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		45	0.54	65	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.18	48	0.05	43	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		58	0.48	15	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	81	0.03	76	0.03
Rangell 2001		60	0.48	16	0.00	32	0.08	41	0.17	36	0.19	29	0.18
Richter 1976		80	0.35	76	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	79	0.03
Rosen 1989		35	0.59	41	0.00	30	0.08	25	0.38	41	0.12	26	0.21
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.43	85	0.00	77	0.05	61	0.05	80	0.03	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		70	0.45	63	0.00	55	0.04	64	0.04	32	0.19	44	0.09
Rosenthal 1931b		73	0.43	90	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	52	0.05	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		64	0.47	89	0.00	64	0.04	72	0.04	63	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		68	0.45	66	0.00	65	0.03	84	0.03	46	0.07	55	0.05
Rossi 2007		84	0.31	64	0.00	68	0.04	75	0.04	26	0.26	39	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		1	0.76	2	0.20	2	0.40	9	0.60	1	0.65	3	0.62
Rubinstein 1952		4	0.73	1	0.31	1	0.31	1	0.76	1	0.71	1	0.73
Rubinstein 1966		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Schilhawsky 1960		65	0.47	59	0.00	70	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Shebanova 2002		21	0.65	62	0.00	22	0.07	21	0.41	41	0.16	23	0.26
Smith 1975		33	0.59	27	0.00	26	0.09	24	0.39	49	0.05	32	0.14
Sokolov 2002		59	0.48	40	0.00	75	0.05	58	0.05	65	0.04	59	0.04
Sztompka 1959		47	0.54	54	0.00	59	0.07	46	0.07	65	0.05	49	0.06
Tomsic 1995		19	0.65	9	0.01	12	0.15	11	0.57	5	0.62	4	0.59
Uninsky 1932		79	0.36	73	0.00	83	0.05	57	0.05	84	0.03	64	0.04
Uninsky 1971		78	0.37	51	0.00	82	0.04	78	0.04	78	0.04	62	0.04
Wasowski 1980		43	0.55	61	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	80	0.04	50	0.05
Zak 1937		7	0.70	6	0.05	8	0.12	13	0.53	30	0.26	13	0.37
Zak 1951		14	0.66	10	0.01	9	0.13	8	0.60	26	0.27	11	0.40
Average		2	0.74	3	0.13	7	0.18	4	0.67	38	0.16	17	0.33
Random 1		91	-0.18	79	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.05	87	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	45	0.08	65	0.04
Random 3		90	-0.08	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	73	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).