Nadelmann 1956

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Afanassiev 2001   55  0.3630  0.0049  0.0452  0.0413  0.4650  0.14
Ashkenazy 1981   53  0.3766  0.0057  0.0454  0.0427  0.1561  0.08
Beliavsky 2004   63  0.2138  0.0061  0.0364  0.0340  0.0864  0.05
BenOr 1989   26  0.4532  0.0021  0.0716  0.2925  0.5121  0.38
Biret 1990   37  0.4411  0.0043  0.0644  0.0622  0.2354  0.12
Blet 2003   11  0.4834  0.0014  0.1114  0.3614  0.6011  0.46
Block 1995   39  0.4358  0.0037  0.0835  0.0816  0.3542  0.17
Brailowsky 1960   2  0.622  0.102  0.522  0.702  0.792  0.74
Chiu 1999   59  0.3416  0.0060  0.0550  0.0537  0.0663  0.05
Clidat 1994   29  0.459  0.0120  0.0826  0.196  0.5225  0.31
Cohen 1997   62  0.2865  0.0062  0.0549  0.0518  0.4544  0.15
Coop 1987   32  0.4448  0.0034  0.0740  0.0729  0.3243  0.15
Cortot 1951   61  0.3045  0.0063  0.0548  0.0520  0.4547  0.15
Czerny 1949   34  0.4437  0.0029  0.0828  0.1726  0.2634  0.21
Czerny 1949b   27  0.4543  0.0028  0.0823  0.227  0.6518  0.38
Ezaki 2006   51  0.3854  0.0052  0.0551  0.0533  0.1657  0.09
Falvay 1989   17  0.4722  0.0015  0.0913  0.388  0.6110  0.48
Ferenczy 1958   12  0.4820  0.0012  0.1110  0.4215  0.609  0.50
Fiorentino 1962   35  0.4446  0.0041  0.0645  0.0622  0.3645  0.15
Fliere 1977   41  0.4251  0.0044  0.0836  0.087  0.5333  0.21
Fou 1978   45  0.4155  0.0055  0.0459  0.0432  0.1760  0.08
Francois 1956   58  0.3562  0.0059  0.0457  0.0428  0.2059  0.09
Hatto 1997   46  0.4056  0.0045  0.0453  0.0418  0.4749  0.14
Horowitz 1971   15  0.4813  0.0017  0.1217  0.295  0.6216  0.42
Horowitz 1985   43  0.4114  0.0016  0.0921  0.237  0.5722  0.36
Indjic 2001   44  0.4160  0.0046  0.0742  0.0719  0.5036  0.19
Kapell 1951   40  0.4312  0.0023  0.0829  0.1512  0.5226  0.28
Kiepura 1999   9  0.505  0.016  0.177  0.522  0.696  0.60
Kilenyi 1937   13  0.4852  0.0027  0.0624  0.2120  0.5623  0.34
Kissin 1993   22  0.4635  0.0040  0.0738  0.0720  0.4738  0.18
Kitain 1937   56  0.3610  0.0036  0.0933  0.095  0.6731  0.25
Kushner 1990   28  0.4539  0.0035  0.0741  0.0719  0.4241  0.17
Levy 1951   38  0.4336  0.0042  0.0739  0.0716  0.4240  0.17
Luisada 1990   23  0.463  0.0319  0.0827  0.1720  0.4329  0.27
Lushtak 2004   31  0.4450  0.0033  0.0643  0.0613  0.5339  0.18
Lympany 1968   21  0.4621  0.0032  0.0632  0.126  0.6227  0.27
Magaloff 1977   50  0.3842  0.0053  0.0362  0.0315  0.3955  0.11
Magaloff 1977b   54  0.3747  0.0054  0.0461  0.0411  0.3753  0.12
Magin 1975   5  0.544  0.017  0.146  0.574  0.695  0.63
Milkina 1970   33  0.4428  0.0010  0.0915  0.3219  0.4419  0.38
Mohovich 1999   30  0.4529  0.009  0.129  0.433  0.688  0.54
Nadelmann 1956   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Ohlsson 1999   6  0.547  0.015  0.165  0.623  0.714  0.66
Olejniczac 1990   16  0.4817  0.0026  0.0718  0.2714  0.6317  0.41
Olejniczak 1991   19  0.4749  0.0038  0.0834  0.0815  0.4735  0.19
Osinska 1989   4  0.5427  0.004  0.144  0.6413  0.577  0.60
Paderewski 1912   25  0.4653  0.0025  0.0820  0.252  0.5720  0.38
Perahia 1994   8  0.5015  0.0011  0.1112  0.3811  0.5513  0.46
Perlemuter 1986   3  0.556  0.013  0.213  0.655  0.733  0.69
Poblocka 1999   36  0.4419  0.0018  0.1025  0.2119  0.3628  0.27
Rangell 2001   49  0.3924  0.0051  0.0460  0.0414  0.5546  0.15
Risler 1920   48  0.4059  0.0050  0.0455  0.0410  0.4848  0.14
Rosen 1989   60  0.3431  0.0058  0.0456  0.0431  0.2956  0.11
Rubinstein 1939   20  0.4741  0.0031  0.0731  0.1415  0.3932  0.23
Rubinstein 1952   10  0.4918  0.0013  0.1611  0.4220  0.4814  0.45
Rubinstein 1966   7  0.5240  0.008  0.138  0.4716  0.4512  0.46
Rummel 1943   18  0.478  0.0130  0.0730  0.145  0.5330  0.27
Shebanova 2002   24  0.4625  0.0022  0.0722  0.2219  0.4724  0.32
Smith 1975   47  0.4063  0.0047  0.0547  0.0527  0.1558  0.09
Szpilman 1948   14  0.4826  0.0024  0.0819  0.274  0.7315  0.44
Uninsky 1971   57  0.3523  0.0048  0.0646  0.0625  0.2751  0.13
Wasowski 1980   52  0.3833  0.0056  0.0458  0.0440  0.0862  0.06
Weissenberg 1971   42  0.4257  0.0039  0.0737  0.078  0.4437  0.18
Average   1  0.711  0.761  0.751  0.905  0.641  0.76
Random 1    66  -0.0261  0.0065  0.0265  0.0236  0.0565  0.03
Random 2   64  0.0944  0.0064  0.0363  0.035  0.5652  0.13
Random 3   65  0.0064  0.0066  0.0166  0.0158  0.0366  0.02

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).