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		40	0.49	9	0.01	49	0.05	61	0.05	73	0.04	72	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		59	0.43	28	0.00	59	0.07	48	0.07	52	0.04	53	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		52	0.44	46	0.00	69	0.05	53	0.05	64	0.04	74	0.04
Bacha 2000		44	0.47	63	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.20	16	0.36	32	0.27
Badura 1965		83	0.31	81	0.00	83	0.04	73	0.04	76	0.04	73	0.04
Barbosa 1983		26	0.55	22	0.00	16	0.10	22	0.45	14	0.54	10	0.49
Biret 1990		22	0.56	54	0.00	21	0.10	17	0.48	33	0.23	28	0.33
Blet 2003		48	0.45	68	0.00	53	0.04	74	0.04	61	0.05	66	0.04
Block 1995		72	0.38	34	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.11	41	0.13	47	0.12
Blumental 1952		15	0.59	55	0.00	12	0.14	25	0.41	15	0.39	21	0.40
Boshniakovich 1969		70	0.39	58	0.00	71	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.04	84	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		42	0.48	13	0.01	41	0.06	40	0.17	20	0.47	31	0.28
Bunin 1987		84	0.31	82	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03
Bunin 1987b		86	0.29	83	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03
Chiu 1999		51	0.45	51	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.15	32	0.17	42	0.16
Cohen 1997		32	0.52	25	0.00	26	0.09	29	0.36	4	0.52	17	0.43
Cortot 1951		77	0.35	88	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	65	0.04	87	0.03
Csalog 1996		17	0.58	52	0.00	17	0.09	16	0.48	8	0.51	11	0.49
Czerny 1949		58	0.43	61	0.00	63	0.05	57	0.05	69	0.04	71	0.04
Czerny 1990		13	0.60	36	0.00	13	0.17	18	0.47	28	0.39	18	0.43
Duchoud 2007		69	0.40	74	0.00	76	0.02	88	0.02	58	0.05	83	0.03
Ezaki 2006		29	0.54	56	0.00	33	0.09	33	0.30	41	0.17	35	0.23
Falvay 1989		4	0.66	4	0.04	5	0.22	9	0.60	4	0.62	6	0.61
Farrell 1958		20	0.57	27	0.00	8	0.14	10	0.56	10	0.56	8	0.56
Ferenczy 1958		71	0.39	84	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	51	0.05	69	0.04
Fliere 1977		31	0.52	21	0.00	32	0.08	24	0.41	58	0.05	43	0.14
Fou 1978		8	0.62	16	0.01	11	0.21	8	0.60	15	0.49	9	0.54
Francois 1956		38	0.49	85	0.00	37	0.08	34	0.30	16	0.50	22	0.39
Friedman 1923		75	0.37	19	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	49	0.06	76	0.04
Friedman 1923b		76	0.36	44	0.00	75	0.05	58	0.05	67	0.05	55	0.05
Friedman 1930		80	0.32	47	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.04	82	0.03
Garcia 2007		68	0.40	69	0.00	68	0.05	62	0.05	50	0.05	54	0.05
Garcia 2007b		43	0.48	50	0.00	50	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.04
Gierzod 1998		25	0.55	30	0.00	35	0.08	28	0.36	56	0.05	45	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		64	0.41	59	0.00	61	0.07	46	0.07	60	0.03	56	0.05
Groot 1988		27	0.55	14	0.01	24	0.12	15	0.49	7	0.48	12	0.48
Harasiewicz 1955		50	0.45	43	0.00	47	0.06	49	0.06	60	0.05	59	0.05
Hatto 1993		55	0.44	70	0.00	57	0.06	52	0.06	66	0.04	58	0.05
Hatto 1997		54	0.44	64	0.00	51	0.04	63	0.04	57	0.05	68	0.04
Horowitz 1949		87	0.29	20	0.00	88	0.04	70	0.04	85	0.03	79	0.03
Indjic 1988		56	0.44	65	0.00	58	0.06	50	0.06	83	0.03	65	0.04
Kapell 1951		9	0.62	7	0.02	14	0.12	14	0.55	26	0.30	19	0.41
Kissin 1993		14	0.59	23	0.00	20	0.10	11	0.55	38	0.36	15	0.44
Kushner 1989		5	0.63	17	0.01	10	0.23	4	0.67	17	0.58	4	0.62
Luisada 1991		28	0.54	18	0.01	29	0.09	31	0.34	35	0.20	34	0.26
Lushtak 2004		7	0.62	37	0.00	4	0.18	7	0.63	7	0.62	5	0.62
Malcuzynski 1961		78	0.33	48	0.00	82	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	78	0.03
Magaloff 1978		24	0.56	40	0.00	23	0.11	26	0.38	8	0.48	16	0.43
Magin 1975		37	0.49	10	0.01	31	0.07	37	0.23	42	0.18	38	0.20
Michalowski 1933		88	0.25	49	0.00	85	0.03	75	0.03	65	0.04	81	0.03
Milkina 1970		10	0.61	11	0.01	9	0.17	5	0.65	14	0.55	7	0.60
Mohovich 1999		6	0.63	5	0.02	6	0.17	6	0.63	8	0.66	3	0.64
Moravec 1969		33	0.51	15	0.01	42	0.06	44	0.13	25	0.38	37	0.22
Morozova 2008		34	0.51	45	0.00	36	0.08	32	0.32	43	0.17	36	0.23
Neighaus 1950		73	0.38	89	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	70	0.04	86	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.31	79	0.00	79	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.03	88	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		47	0.46	41	0.00	56	0.06	51	0.06	45	0.11	50	0.08
Osinska 1989		21	0.57	57	0.00	15	0.12	13	0.55	36	0.23	24	0.36
Pachmann 1927		81	0.32	66	0.00	84	0.04	68	0.04	29	0.29	48	0.11
Paderewski 1930		79	0.33	86	0.00	77	0.02	87	0.02	46	0.05	80	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		36	0.50	26	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.15	50	0.05	49	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		60	0.42	80	0.00	54	0.04	64	0.04	50	0.06	52	0.05
Poblocka 1999		35	0.51	6	0.02	30	0.07	36	0.25	43	0.15	39	0.19
Rabcewiczowa 1932		16	0.59	87	0.00	7	0.17	20	0.46	11	0.48	13	0.47
Rachmaninoff 1923		66	0.41	8	0.02	34	0.07	35	0.26	42	0.14	40	0.19
Rangell 2001		61	0.42	42	0.00	48	0.05	60	0.05	53	0.05	57	0.05
Richter 1976		85	0.30	29	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	70	0.04	62	0.04
Rosen 1989		18	0.57	38	0.00	25	0.12	23	0.43	33	0.27	27	0.34
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.37	75	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	44	0.12	51	0.06
Rosenthal 1931		49	0.45	90	0.00	52	0.04	71	0.04	18	0.47	44	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		53	0.44	76	0.00	60	0.07	47	0.07	18	0.47	41	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		45	0.47	71	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.20	21	0.46	30	0.30
Rosenthal 1931d		63	0.42	72	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	23	0.45	46	0.13
Rossi 2007		62	0.42	62	0.00	38	0.07	41	0.16	13	0.45	33	0.27
Rubinstein 1939		2	0.74	2	0.29	2	0.53	3	0.75	2	0.78	2	0.76
Rubinstein 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rubinstein 1966		1	0.74	1	0.33	1	0.33	1	0.80	2	0.78	1	0.79
Schilhawsky 1960		67	0.41	39	0.00	66	0.05	59	0.05	60	0.04	67	0.04
Shebanova 2002		19	0.57	12	0.01	19	0.08	12	0.55	40	0.18	29	0.31
Smith 1975		30	0.53	24	0.00	28	0.07	27	0.37	21	0.33	25	0.35
Sokolov 2002		41	0.49	53	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	61	0.04	61	0.04
Sztompka 1959		39	0.49	32	0.00	46	0.05	55	0.05	71	0.04	63	0.04
Tomsic 1995		23	0.56	33	0.00	27	0.07	30	0.35	7	0.61	14	0.46
Uninsky 1932		57	0.43	73	0.00	65	0.04	69	0.04	61	0.04	70	0.04
Uninsky 1971		65	0.41	67	0.00	67	0.04	66	0.04	66	0.05	64	0.04
Wasowski 1980		46	0.46	31	0.00	64	0.05	54	0.05	77	0.04	60	0.04
Zak 1937		12	0.60	35	0.00	22	0.12	19	0.47	32	0.26	26	0.35
Zak 1951		11	0.61	60	0.00	18	0.08	21	0.45	32	0.30	23	0.37
Average		3	0.66	3	0.13	3	0.37	2	0.78	41	0.21	20	0.40
Random 1		91	-0.08	77	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	51	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.01	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	46	0.05	89	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.08	78	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	54	0.04	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).