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		56	0.39	28	0.00	44	0.05	45	0.09	25	0.37	51	0.18
Anderszewski 2003		5	0.57	3	0.02	3	0.30	3	0.78	1	0.86	1	0.82
Ashkenazy 1981		50	0.40	47	0.00	56	0.06	64	0.06	31	0.32	61	0.14
Bacha 2000		53	0.40	39	0.00	52	0.06	63	0.06	5	0.66	47	0.20
Badura 1965		61	0.38	51	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.11	10	0.54	41	0.24
Barbosa 1983		6	0.56	2	0.02	7	0.19	5	0.72	2	0.81	5	0.76
Biret 1990		59	0.38	86	0.00	59	0.07	52	0.07	24	0.48	52	0.18
Blet 2003		78	0.29	73	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	61	0.04	88	0.03
Block 1995		38	0.43	50	0.00	47	0.07	50	0.07	20	0.50	49	0.19
Blumental 1952		42	0.42	16	0.00	33	0.05	32	0.23	20	0.50	32	0.34
Boshniakovich 1969		40	0.43	44	0.00	22	0.13	21	0.45	18	0.55	23	0.50
Brailowsky 1960		62	0.38	41	0.00	66	0.08	48	0.08	26	0.40	50	0.18
Bunin 1987		81	0.28	65	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	62	0.05	83	0.04
Bunin 1987b		84	0.27	87	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.04	85	0.03
Chiu 1999		44	0.42	53	0.00	58	0.07	53	0.07	44	0.12	68	0.09
Cohen 1997		52	0.40	48	0.00	39	0.05	36	0.18	9	0.63	33	0.34
Cortot 1951		77	0.30	69	0.00	70	0.03	87	0.03	34	0.23	72	0.08
Csalog 1996		47	0.41	45	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.12	7	0.54	40	0.25
Czerny 1949		35	0.44	15	0.00	29	0.06	27	0.33	16	0.69	25	0.48
Czerny 1990		14	0.50	21	0.00	17	0.15	14	0.59	14	0.72	13	0.65
Duchoud 2007		65	0.36	76	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	29	0.31	66	0.11
Ezaki 2006		24	0.46	38	0.00	27	0.07	28	0.28	14	0.58	28	0.40
Falvay 1989		17	0.48	9	0.01	18	0.12	25	0.37	8	0.50	27	0.43
Farrell 1958		39	0.43	12	0.00	20	0.11	26	0.36	5	0.63	24	0.48
Ferenczy 1958		66	0.36	27	0.00	63	0.07	51	0.07	14	0.70	45	0.22
Fliere 1977		31	0.45	77	0.00	37	0.06	31	0.23	43	0.17	48	0.20
Fou 1978		11	0.53	7	0.01	10	0.24	13	0.61	4	0.72	11	0.66
Francois 1956		57	0.39	74	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.12	12	0.68	37	0.29
Friedman 1923		74	0.33	31	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	47	0.07	80	0.05
Friedman 1923b		76	0.31	24	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	59	0.05	84	0.04
Friedman 1930		79	0.29	78	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.04	89	0.03
Garcia 2007		48	0.41	43	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.13	7	0.64	36	0.29
Garcia 2007b		71	0.34	55	0.00	28	0.07	38	0.16	19	0.51	38	0.29
Gierzod 1998		20	0.48	25	0.00	21	0.13	18	0.50	11	0.62	18	0.56
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.44	32	0.00	45	0.05	46	0.09	14	0.56	46	0.22
Groot 1988		43	0.42	62	0.00	31	0.06	37	0.17	31	0.34	42	0.24
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.56	58	0.00	8	0.18	7	0.72	3	0.69	10	0.70
Hatto 1993		15	0.50	40	0.00	14	0.17	16	0.55	15	0.54	19	0.54
Hatto 1997		13	0.52	14	0.00	12	0.17	11	0.66	5	0.67	12	0.66
Horowitz 1949		82	0.27	81	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	70	0.04	86	0.03
Indjic 1988		18	0.48	26	0.00	16	0.14	19	0.49	19	0.54	21	0.51
Kapell 1951		12	0.52	8	0.01	13	0.20	12	0.63	5	0.59	14	0.61
Kissin 1993		16	0.49	34	0.00	15	0.15	15	0.56	17	0.62	15	0.59
Kushner 1989		4	0.57	18	0.00	5	0.19	8	0.71	7	0.69	9	0.70
Luisada 1991		54	0.39	79	0.00	61	0.06	60	0.06	39	0.15	67	0.09
Lushtak 2004		8	0.55	17	0.00	6	0.17	9	0.69	2	0.78	7	0.73
Malcuzynski 1961		33	0.44	19	0.00	26	0.10	24	0.38	19	0.50	26	0.44
Magaloff 1978		51	0.40	64	0.00	54	0.08	47	0.08	30	0.28	59	0.15
Magin 1975		55	0.39	54	0.00	57	0.08	49	0.08	31	0.36	53	0.17
Michalowski 1933		88	0.20	82	0.00	88	0.04	69	0.04	60	0.06	79	0.05
Milkina 1970		10	0.53	6	0.01	9	0.22	6	0.72	4	0.79	6	0.75
Mohovich 1999		3	0.58	11	0.01	4	0.24	2	0.79	2	0.84	3	0.81
Moravec 1969		37	0.44	60	0.00	53	0.07	57	0.07	24	0.33	58	0.15
Morozova 2008		23	0.46	35	0.00	35	0.08	30	0.23	23	0.48	34	0.33
Neighaus 1950		45	0.42	71	0.00	50	0.06	65	0.06	15	0.48	56	0.17
Niedzielski 1931		80	0.29	63	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	58	0.05	82	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		41	0.43	10	0.01	51	0.06	61	0.06	33	0.28	62	0.13
Osinska 1989		19	0.48	33	0.00	19	0.14	17	0.53	14	0.59	17	0.56
Pachmann 1927		86	0.26	56	0.00	87	0.03	72	0.03	69	0.04	87	0.03
Paderewski 1930		83	0.27	72	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	34	0.35	64	0.12
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.37	83	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	39	0.18	69	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.34	46	0.00	72	0.03	83	0.03	31	0.24	70	0.08
Poblocka 1999		29	0.45	13	0.00	34	0.07	29	0.27	15	0.54	29	0.38
Rabcewiczowa 1932		32	0.44	37	0.00	23	0.13	20	0.47	8	0.68	16	0.57
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.34	84	0.00	64	0.07	54	0.07	52	0.06	75	0.06
Rangell 2001		21	0.47	20	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.43	4	0.66	20	0.53
Richter 1976		28	0.45	49	0.00	49	0.07	58	0.07	29	0.40	55	0.17
Rosen 1989		27	0.45	52	0.00	48	0.06	66	0.06	26	0.29	63	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.33	22	0.00	83	0.03	89	0.03	45	0.12	77	0.06
Rosenthal 1931		63	0.38	42	0.00	65	0.07	55	0.07	14	0.69	44	0.22
Rosenthal 1931b		67	0.35	75	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	15	0.62	57	0.16
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.35	80	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	33	0.24	73	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.26	57	0.00	85	0.03	75	0.03	42	0.13	78	0.06
Rossi 2007		87	0.24	91	0.00	82	0.03	74	0.03	21	0.39	65	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		9	0.54	5	0.02	11	0.24	10	0.68	3	0.76	8	0.72
Rubinstein 1952		2	0.59	4	0.02	2	0.25	4	0.78	2	0.83	4	0.80
Rubinstein 1966		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Schilhawsky 1960		72	0.34	61	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	41	0.13	76	0.06
Shebanova 2002		25	0.46	89	0.00	32	0.06	33	0.23	27	0.44	35	0.32
Smith 1975		49	0.41	59	0.00	60	0.10	44	0.10	18	0.51	43	0.23
Sokolov 2002		75	0.32	66	0.00	74	0.03	86	0.03	55	0.05	81	0.04
Sztompka 1959		36	0.44	67	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.15	21	0.48	39	0.27
Tomsic 1995		46	0.41	29	0.00	46	0.06	62	0.06	13	0.47	54	0.17
Uninsky 1932		58	0.38	68	0.00	55	0.06	59	0.06	24	0.40	60	0.15
Uninsky 1971		22	0.47	70	0.00	24	0.11	22	0.43	9	0.58	22	0.50
Wasowski 1980		60	0.38	36	0.00	62	0.07	56	0.07	62	0.05	74	0.06
Zak 1937		30	0.45	30	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.21	12	0.57	30	0.35
Zak 1951		26	0.46	23	0.00	30	0.06	34	0.23	10	0.54	31	0.35
Average		1	0.70	1	0.80	1	0.79	1	0.91	3	0.73	2	0.82
Random 1		91	-0.09	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.03	85	0.00	89	0.03	88	0.03	32	0.24	71	0.08
Random 3		90	-0.09	88	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	74	0.03	90	0.02

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).