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		68	0.36	15	0.00	78	0.04	63	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		20	0.49	34	0.00	20	0.11	20	0.46	36	0.31	21	0.38
Ashkenazy 1981		56	0.39	21	0.00	76	0.04	71	0.04	66	0.03	86	0.03
Bacha 2000		40	0.44	52	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.18	7	0.54	29	0.31
Badura 1965		70	0.35	48	0.00	55	0.04	60	0.04	37	0.19	52	0.09
Barbosa 1983		11	0.52	41	0.00	16	0.11	17	0.49	43	0.16	31	0.28
Biret 1990		22	0.49	55	0.00	24	0.09	24	0.42	42	0.12	32	0.22
Blet 2003		83	0.26	57	0.00	84	0.02	89	0.02	85	0.03	88	0.02
Block 1995		69	0.35	73	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	45	0.13	57	0.07
Blumental 1952		47	0.42	74	0.00	49	0.05	49	0.05	48	0.07	60	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.50	25	0.00	17	0.09	18	0.49	33	0.26	24	0.36
Brailowsky 1960		58	0.38	38	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.09	54	0.06	56	0.07
Bunin 1987		49	0.42	33	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	45	0.10	61	0.06
Bunin 1987b		53	0.39	83	0.00	70	0.05	53	0.05	62	0.05	64	0.05
Chiu 1999		74	0.33	71	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	68	0.04	79	0.03
Cohen 1997		76	0.32	86	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	52	0.05	76	0.04
Cortot 1951		55	0.39	61	0.00	29	0.08	39	0.18	8	0.63	27	0.34
Csalog 1996		59	0.38	75	0.00	59	0.03	75	0.03	72	0.04	82	0.03
Czerny 1949		4	0.62	8	0.01	4	0.45	3	0.70	14	0.68	3	0.69
Czerny 1990		13	0.51	58	0.00	10	0.16	15	0.52	36	0.43	15	0.47
Duchoud 2007		72	0.34	31	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	23	0.45	42	0.13
Ezaki 2006		27	0.48	49	0.00	28	0.10	26	0.39	45	0.11	33	0.21
Falvay 1989		42	0.44	50	0.00	60	0.04	57	0.04	77	0.04	71	0.04
Farrell 1958		23	0.49	59	0.00	8	0.17	8	0.59	10	0.65	4	0.62
Ferenczy 1958		81	0.29	76	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.03	89	0.02
Fliere 1977		21	0.49	82	0.00	27	0.10	27	0.38	65	0.05	39	0.14
Fou 1978		24	0.49	22	0.00	18	0.11	16	0.49	19	0.42	16	0.45
Francois 1956		78	0.31	84	0.00	71	0.04	58	0.04	53	0.05	78	0.04
Friedman 1923		63	0.38	45	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	21	0.46	38	0.15
Friedman 1923b		65	0.38	62	0.00	53	0.05	51	0.05	21	0.44	37	0.15
Friedman 1930		85	0.25	36	0.00	80	0.04	59	0.04	77	0.03	83	0.03
Garcia 2007		73	0.34	19	0.00	52	0.04	62	0.04	26	0.41	43	0.13
Garcia 2007b		45	0.43	53	0.00	26	0.08	28	0.35	20	0.47	19	0.41
Gierzod 1998		18	0.49	87	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.30	63	0.04	47	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		41	0.44	65	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	62	0.04	68	0.05
Groot 1988		62	0.38	20	0.00	33	0.07	38	0.20	55	0.05	49	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.53	16	0.00	14	0.15	10	0.55	30	0.45	13	0.50
Hatto 1993		28	0.48	28	0.00	22	0.12	22	0.43	34	0.27	26	0.34
Hatto 1997		12	0.52	4	0.02	12	0.19	11	0.54	24	0.43	14	0.48
Horowitz 1949		84	0.26	6	0.02	82	0.02	86	0.02	62	0.05	81	0.03
Indjic 1988		19	0.49	32	0.00	21	0.14	21	0.45	31	0.30	23	0.37
Kapell 1951		8	0.53	7	0.02	13	0.14	12	0.54	25	0.50	11	0.52
Kissin 1993		25	0.48	44	0.00	25	0.09	25	0.42	34	0.40	18	0.41
Kushner 1989		6	0.57	51	0.00	6	0.20	7	0.62	21	0.46	10	0.53
Luisada 1991		66	0.37	37	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04
Lushtak 2004		38	0.45	39	0.00	23	0.10	23	0.42	37	0.28	25	0.34
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.58	3	0.08	5	0.34	5	0.67	12	0.58	5	0.62
Magaloff 1978		26	0.48	13	0.01	31	0.08	31	0.33	37	0.25	30	0.29
Magin 1975		32	0.47	88	0.00	38	0.08	35	0.27	50	0.05	44	0.12
Michalowski 1933		87	0.17	63	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	36	0.15	66	0.05
Milkina 1970		7	0.57	12	0.01	7	0.18	6	0.64	25	0.43	12	0.52
Mohovich 1999		17	0.49	47	0.00	19	0.09	19	0.47	32	0.31	22	0.38
Moravec 1969		43	0.43	23	0.00	50	0.05	52	0.05	50	0.08	58	0.06
Morozova 2008		14	0.51	35	0.00	15	0.15	14	0.52	12	0.56	9	0.54
Neighaus 1950		64	0.38	11	0.01	66	0.03	72	0.03	23	0.37	48	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		88	0.16	68	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		50	0.41	30	0.00	61	0.05	56	0.05	64	0.04	72	0.04
Osinska 1989		34	0.46	78	0.00	36	0.09	33	0.32	59	0.06	40	0.14
Pachmann 1927		54	0.39	60	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	8	0.58	36	0.15
Paderewski 1930		77	0.31	64	0.00	65	0.03	81	0.03	10	0.51	46	0.12
Perlemuter 1992		80	0.30	79	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	54	0.05	70	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.37	40	0.00	72	0.05	50	0.05	34	0.32	41	0.13
Poblocka 1999		29	0.47	85	0.00	35	0.09	30	0.33	47	0.11	35	0.19
Rabcewiczowa 1932		15	0.51	14	0.01	9	0.15	9	0.58	5	0.56	7	0.57
Rachmaninoff 1923		60	0.38	18	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.15	54	0.05	50	0.09
Rangell 2001		10	0.52	54	0.00	11	0.20	13	0.53	4	0.67	6	0.60
Richter 1976		35	0.45	80	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.09	42	0.17	45	0.12
Rosen 1989		51	0.41	42	0.00	63	0.03	74	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		86	0.24	89	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.31	90	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	49	0.05	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.28	72	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	65	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		61	0.38	24	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	46	0.10	62	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		75	0.33	26	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	49	0.06	77	0.04
Rossi 2007		71	0.34	77	0.00	56	0.03	73	0.03	35	0.21	54	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1952		2	0.68	1	0.62	1	0.62	2	0.80	3	0.74	1	0.77
Rubinstein 1966		3	0.63	5	0.02	3	0.32	4	0.70	9	0.68	2	0.69
Schilhawsky 1960		36	0.45	81	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.26	29	0.39	28	0.32
Shebanova 2002		52	0.40	27	0.00	67	0.04	68	0.04	75	0.04	74	0.04
Smith 1975		48	0.42	46	0.00	51	0.06	47	0.06	52	0.07	59	0.06
Sokolov 2002		44	0.43	67	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.10	27	0.40	34	0.20
Sztompka 1959		30	0.47	9	0.01	32	0.08	32	0.32	23	0.48	20	0.39
Tomsic 1995		57	0.39	43	0.00	62	0.05	55	0.05	63	0.05	65	0.05
Uninsky 1932		37	0.45	17	0.00	30	0.07	29	0.35	18	0.57	17	0.45
Uninsky 1971		39	0.45	56	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	58	0.05	67	0.05
Wasowski 1980		46	0.43	66	0.00	48	0.04	64	0.04	51	0.06	63	0.05
Zak 1937		33	0.46	29	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.12	48	0.06	55	0.08
Zak 1951		31	0.47	10	0.01	39	0.08	37	0.22	74	0.04	51	0.09
Average		1	0.69	2	0.09	2	0.51	1	0.82	31	0.39	8	0.57
Random 1		89	0.03	69	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	14	0.40	53	0.09
Random 2		90	-0.04	70	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	74	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.08	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	73	0.03	91	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).