Rubinstein 1952

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		67	0.31	35	0.00	62	0.04	59	0.04	52	0.05	79	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		52	0.37	59	0.00	40	0.08	42	0.21	28	0.41	38	0.29
Ashkenazy 1981		49	0.38	45	0.00	54	0.09	46	0.09	50	0.08	58	0.08
Bacha 2000		66	0.31	84	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	32	0.22	57	0.08
Badura 1965		84	0.23	85	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	87	0.03
Barbosa 1983		33	0.41	55	0.00	28	0.07	28	0.47	27	0.36	33	0.41
Biret 1990		41	0.40	70	0.00	34	0.10	35	0.34	22	0.54	32	0.43
Blet 2003		65	0.31	71	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	47	0.06	68	0.05
Block 1995		28	0.43	13	0.01	24	0.08	15	0.55	14	0.56	18	0.55
Blumental 1952		56	0.36	37	0.00	58	0.05	57	0.05	46	0.08	65	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.41	40	0.00	38	0.13	37	0.28	39	0.21	42	0.24
Brailowsky 1960		69	0.30	48	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	48	0.07	66	0.05
Bunin 1987		74	0.28	76	0.00	67	0.03	74	0.03	65	0.04	88	0.03
Bunin 1987b		79	0.27	79	0.00	81	0.04	65	0.04	57	0.05	74	0.04
Chiu 1999		58	0.33	56	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	59	0.05	72	0.04
Cohen 1997		46	0.39	20	0.00	43	0.08	43	0.21	10	0.62	35	0.36
Cortot 1951		82	0.26	49	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	24	0.38	49	0.12
Csalog 1996		53	0.37	36	0.00	56	0.08	50	0.08	59	0.05	62	0.06
Czerny 1949		37	0.41	25	0.00	12	0.13	23	0.52	15	0.70	12	0.60
Czerny 1990		13	0.46	44	0.00	22	0.08	14	0.56	23	0.59	16	0.57
Duchoud 2007		63	0.32	63	0.00	70	0.04	62	0.04	44	0.09	63	0.06
Ezaki 2006		45	0.40	72	0.00	44	0.09	44	0.20	41	0.27	43	0.23
Falvay 1989		19	0.45	26	0.00	19	0.07	25	0.49	17	0.42	29	0.45
Farrell 1958		60	0.32	24	0.00	31	0.07	39	0.27	18	0.43	36	0.34
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.17	66	0.00	88	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.04	78	0.04
Fliere 1977		11	0.46	33	0.00	23	0.09	18	0.54	45	0.16	37	0.29
Fou 1978		40	0.40	27	0.00	35	0.08	32	0.40	26	0.38	34	0.39
Francois 1956		35	0.41	34	0.00	25	0.06	27	0.47	6	0.76	13	0.60
Friedman 1923		68	0.31	43	0.00	74	0.03	86	0.03	48	0.07	71	0.05
Friedman 1923b		73	0.29	31	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	68	0.04	89	0.03
Friedman 1930		59	0.33	50	0.00	59	0.04	61	0.04	54	0.06	69	0.05
Garcia 2007		81	0.27	77	0.00	69	0.03	76	0.03	46	0.07	70	0.05
Garcia 2007b		64	0.32	41	0.00	64	0.03	73	0.03	67	0.05	82	0.04
Gierzod 1998		47	0.39	61	0.00	30	0.07	36	0.30	37	0.22	41	0.26
Gornostaeva 1994		30	0.42	46	0.00	29	0.08	30	0.45	16	0.55	26	0.50
Groot 1988		12	0.46	8	0.01	14	0.12	11	0.60	12	0.54	17	0.57
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.51	21	0.00	6	0.22	4	0.73	6	0.62	7	0.67
Hatto 1993		26	0.43	73	0.00	20	0.07	16	0.55	24	0.40	28	0.47
Hatto 1997		14	0.46	28	0.00	7	0.21	8	0.66	7	0.61	10	0.63
Horowitz 1949		75	0.28	47	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	72	0.03	84	0.03
Indjic 1988		25	0.44	69	0.00	21	0.08	17	0.54	22	0.50	21	0.52
Kapell 1951		7	0.50	19	0.00	8	0.18	6	0.67	4	0.61	9	0.64
Kissin 1993		21	0.45	32	0.00	36	0.09	33	0.40	21	0.57	27	0.48
Kushner 1989		8	0.48	22	0.00	18	0.10	12	0.59	21	0.45	19	0.52
Luisada 1991		44	0.40	68	0.00	51	0.06	55	0.06	40	0.14	55	0.09
Lushtak 2004		36	0.41	23	0.00	16	0.11	29	0.46	15	0.54	25	0.50
Malcuzynski 1961		27	0.43	65	0.00	17	0.11	22	0.52	20	0.49	23	0.50
Magaloff 1978		9	0.48	6	0.02	13	0.12	19	0.53	8	0.61	15	0.57
Magin 1975		3	0.55	2	0.16	5	0.33	7	0.67	4	0.73	3	0.70
Michalowski 1933		83	0.25	74	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	69	0.05	76	0.04
Milkina 1970		15	0.46	17	0.00	10	0.15	9	0.65	10	0.69	5	0.67
Mohovich 1999		10	0.47	5	0.02	9	0.22	13	0.58	15	0.59	14	0.58
Moravec 1969		42	0.40	12	0.01	55	0.08	47	0.08	53	0.06	59	0.07
Morozova 2008		54	0.36	78	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.16	38	0.25	44	0.20
Neighaus 1950		50	0.38	90	0.00	49	0.06	54	0.06	31	0.29	47	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.27	88	0.00	82	0.04	60	0.04	65	0.04	73	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		18	0.45	53	0.00	27	0.10	24	0.52	8	0.53	20	0.52
Osinska 1989		4	0.53	10	0.01	4	0.33	3	0.76	6	0.72	2	0.74
Pachmann 1927		72	0.29	58	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	56	0.06	75	0.04
Paderewski 1930		80	0.27	80	0.00	77	0.02	88	0.02	54	0.06	85	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.42	9	0.01	48	0.07	51	0.07	23	0.40	45	0.17
Pierdomenico 2008		62	0.32	62	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	30	0.29	50	0.11
Poblocka 1999		20	0.45	11	0.01	32	0.08	26	0.49	18	0.52	22	0.50
Rabcewiczowa 1932		29	0.43	30	0.00	11	0.16	10	0.60	7	0.69	8	0.64
Rachmaninoff 1923		76	0.27	67	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	64	0.04	83	0.03
Rangell 2001		61	0.32	42	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	43	0.17	56	0.09
Richter 1976		24	0.44	14	0.00	37	0.09	38	0.28	35	0.28	40	0.28
Rosen 1989		43	0.40	39	0.00	46	0.08	49	0.08	51	0.05	64	0.06
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.27	81	0.00	84	0.03	77	0.03	63	0.05	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.22	83	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	50	0.07	67	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.20	91	0.00	87	0.04	72	0.04	68	0.03	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.30	86	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	27	0.32	52	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.22	51	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	60	0.05	81	0.04
Rossi 2007		71	0.30	57	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	9	0.57	46	0.15
Rubinstein 1939		6	0.51	3	0.07	3	0.29	5	0.69	5	0.67	4	0.68
Rubinstein 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1966		2	0.59	4	0.03	2	0.46	2	0.83	4	0.78	1	0.80
Schilhawsky 1960		57	0.33	64	0.00	72	0.04	70	0.04	57	0.05	77	0.04
Shebanova 2002		31	0.42	29	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.21	76	0.05	54	0.10
Smith 1975		22	0.44	7	0.01	39	0.13	34	0.34	13	0.58	31	0.44
Sokolov 2002		17	0.45	18	0.00	15	0.11	21	0.53	2	0.73	11	0.62
Sztompka 1959		16	0.45	60	0.00	33	0.08	31	0.43	23	0.47	30	0.45
Tomsic 1995		34	0.41	15	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.21	24	0.37	39	0.28
Uninsky 1932		55	0.36	54	0.00	53	0.08	48	0.08	40	0.14	51	0.11
Uninsky 1971		23	0.44	38	0.00	26	0.07	20	0.53	19	0.48	24	0.50
Wasowski 1980		38	0.41	16	0.00	47	0.07	52	0.07	60	0.05	61	0.06
Zak 1937		51	0.37	75	0.00	52	0.06	56	0.06	38	0.18	53	0.10
Zak 1951		48	0.38	52	0.00	50	0.06	53	0.06	29	0.24	48	0.12
Average		1	0.63	1	0.57	1	0.57	1	0.88	17	0.51	6	0.67
Random 1		91	-0.08	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	74	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.00	87	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	65	0.04	86	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.02	82	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	29	0.23	60	0.07

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).