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		71	0.38	9	0.01	80	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		23	0.56	33	0.00	22	0.09	19	0.53	16	0.56	20	0.54
Ashkenazy 1981		61	0.42	36	0.00	69	0.03	81	0.03	39	0.18	72	0.07
Bacha 2000		63	0.41	75	0.00	64	0.05	56	0.05	17	0.41	56	0.14
Badura 1965		77	0.35	71	0.00	63	0.04	61	0.04	35	0.19	68	0.09
Barbosa 1983		16	0.59	24	0.00	13	0.12	10	0.63	9	0.66	12	0.64
Biret 1990		31	0.52	64	0.00	31	0.10	29	0.37	28	0.37	33	0.37
Blet 2003		82	0.32	76	0.00	83	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04	83	0.04
Block 1995		55	0.45	67	0.00	46	0.06	51	0.06	14	0.50	48	0.17
Blumental 1952		36	0.50	41	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.15	34	0.33	45	0.22
Boshniakovich 1969		41	0.49	57	0.00	35	0.08	35	0.26	26	0.32	41	0.29
Brailowsky 1960		33	0.51	37	0.00	36	0.07	36	0.25	25	0.47	35	0.34
Bunin 1987		65	0.40	51	0.00	66	0.03	74	0.03	34	0.17	73	0.07
Bunin 1987b		74	0.37	77	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	43	0.11	76	0.06
Chiu 1999		62	0.42	34	0.00	74	0.04	65	0.04	54	0.06	80	0.05
Cohen 1997		58	0.42	42	0.00	68	0.03	79	0.03	11	0.39	65	0.11
Cortot 1951		83	0.29	81	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	37	0.25	66	0.10
Csalog 1996		43	0.49	60	0.00	47	0.07	49	0.07	27	0.32	52	0.15
Czerny 1949		10	0.60	30	0.00	6	0.11	12	0.62	13	0.69	10	0.65
Czerny 1990		5	0.63	23	0.00	14	0.15	8	0.65	13	0.70	7	0.67
Duchoud 2007		73	0.38	72	0.00	67	0.03	76	0.03	12	0.54	62	0.13
Ezaki 2006		15	0.59	53	0.00	21	0.08	15	0.56	14	0.55	18	0.55
Falvay 1989		7	0.62	19	0.00	19	0.10	22	0.51	25	0.51	23	0.51
Farrell 1958		27	0.53	20	0.00	9	0.11	13	0.58	4	0.74	8	0.66
Ferenczy 1958		76	0.36	68	0.00	78	0.02	88	0.02	51	0.06	86	0.03
Fliere 1977		20	0.58	10	0.01	24	0.10	17	0.54	16	0.50	22	0.52
Fou 1978		17	0.58	12	0.00	18	0.11	20	0.53	4	0.62	17	0.57
Francois 1956		59	0.42	78	0.00	56	0.04	69	0.04	8	0.53	55	0.15
Friedman 1923		56	0.43	5	0.02	44	0.05	44	0.14	4	0.66	39	0.30
Friedman 1923b		64	0.41	49	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	4	0.62	42	0.27
Friedman 1930		79	0.35	46	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	39	0.20	67	0.09
Garcia 2007		75	0.36	61	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	20	0.47	59	0.14
Garcia 2007b		40	0.50	54	0.00	32	0.09	33	0.31	7	0.62	28	0.44
Gierzod 1998		11	0.60	27	0.00	23	0.10	23	0.48	30	0.35	30	0.41
Gornostaeva 1994		52	0.46	44	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	40	0.18	69	0.09
Groot 1988		54	0.45	26	0.00	37	0.08	39	0.20	20	0.35	44	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		21	0.57	11	0.01	10	0.12	21	0.51	19	0.57	21	0.54
Hatto 1993		45	0.48	50	0.00	30	0.07	30	0.36	29	0.35	34	0.35
Hatto 1997		39	0.50	85	0.00	20	0.09	25	0.45	23	0.45	27	0.45
Horowitz 1949		85	0.28	38	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	53	0.05	85	0.03
Indjic 1988		44	0.49	58	0.00	29	0.10	27	0.39	26	0.38	32	0.38
Kapell 1951		6	0.63	8	0.01	11	0.13	11	0.62	9	0.67	11	0.64
Kissin 1993		18	0.58	29	0.00	25	0.13	24	0.48	8	0.69	15	0.58
Kushner 1989		4	0.65	18	0.00	4	0.28	4	0.71	7	0.65	6	0.68
Luisada 1991		57	0.43	25	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	43	0.14	75	0.06
Lushtak 2004		13	0.59	31	0.00	5	0.15	5	0.68	3	0.73	4	0.70
Malcuzynski 1961		28	0.53	35	0.00	17	0.14	18	0.54	15	0.55	19	0.54
Magaloff 1978		30	0.52	16	0.00	39	0.06	42	0.16	22	0.41	43	0.26
Magin 1975		19	0.58	6	0.01	7	0.11	16	0.54	7	0.64	14	0.59
Michalowski 1933		86	0.20	82	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	35	0.18	77	0.06
Milkina 1970		8	0.62	28	0.00	8	0.11	7	0.67	7	0.64	9	0.65
Mohovich 1999		9	0.61	21	0.00	12	0.12	6	0.67	3	0.71	5	0.69
Moravec 1969		38	0.50	14	0.00	62	0.05	57	0.05	59	0.06	78	0.05
Morozova 2008		51	0.47	40	0.00	42	0.10	40	0.20	18	0.50	37	0.32
Neighaus 1950		67	0.40	86	0.00	75	0.06	55	0.06	21	0.42	51	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		87	0.19	87	0.00	88	0.03	75	0.03	76	0.04	84	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		50	0.47	52	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	18	0.45	50	0.16
Osinska 1989		14	0.59	55	0.00	15	0.21	14	0.57	20	0.57	16	0.57
Pachmann 1927		81	0.32	45	0.00	77	0.04	64	0.04	23	0.41	61	0.13
Paderewski 1930		88	0.17	88	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	49	0.05	82	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		66	0.40	56	0.00	79	0.02	87	0.02	38	0.22	71	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.39	69	0.00	59	0.06	54	0.06	24	0.46	47	0.17
Poblocka 1999		12	0.60	4	0.02	16	0.14	9	0.63	10	0.62	13	0.62
Rabcewiczowa 1932		48	0.48	62	0.00	26	0.08	31	0.33	11	0.45	31	0.39
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.39	7	0.01	52	0.07	50	0.07	33	0.26	60	0.13
Rangell 2001		46	0.48	22	0.00	55	0.05	59	0.05	21	0.46	54	0.15
Richter 1976		26	0.54	83	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.32	18	0.58	29	0.43
Rosen 1989		34	0.50	73	0.00	51	0.07	46	0.07	30	0.31	53	0.15
Rosenthal 1930		84	0.29	59	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	76	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		72	0.38	89	0.00	76	0.04	63	0.04	31	0.28	64	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.35	84	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	42	0.15	81	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.39	65	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	42	0.17	74	0.07
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.34	79	0.00	82	0.03	72	0.03	38	0.20	70	0.08
Rossi 2007		60	0.42	66	0.00	54	0.04	67	0.04	9	0.51	58	0.14
Rubinstein 1939		3	0.68	2	0.19	3	0.57	3	0.74	2	0.80	2	0.77
Rubinstein 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1966		1	0.76	1	0.45	1	0.44	1	0.86	2	0.86	1	0.86
Schilhawsky 1960		35	0.50	47	0.00	41	0.07	38	0.21	12	0.56	36	0.34
Shebanova 2002		29	0.52	32	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.22	16	0.46	38	0.32
Smith 1975		37	0.50	15	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	24	0.41	49	0.16
Sokolov 2002		53	0.46	70	0.00	57	0.04	62	0.04	21	0.47	57	0.14
Sztompka 1959		25	0.55	17	0.00	34	0.09	34	0.31	10	0.64	26	0.45
Tomsic 1995		42	0.49	43	0.00	61	0.07	47	0.07	36	0.21	63	0.12
Uninsky 1932		49	0.47	74	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	13	0.63	46	0.21
Uninsky 1971		32	0.52	63	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.19	25	0.43	40	0.29
Wasowski 1980		47	0.48	39	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	54	0.06	79	0.05
Zak 1937		24	0.56	13	0.00	28	0.09	28	0.39	15	0.56	25	0.47
Zak 1951		22	0.57	48	0.00	27	0.08	26	0.44	13	0.59	24	0.51
Average		2	0.75	3	0.18	2	0.51	2	0.84	14	0.68	3	0.76
Random 1		90	-0.06	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	43	0.12	89	0.03
Random 2		89	0.02	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	48	0.04	87	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.06	80	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	64	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).