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		50	0.54	59	0.00	64	0.04	75	0.04	63	0.05	80	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		19	0.64	32	0.00	26	0.10	27	0.39	27	0.42	22	0.40
Ashkenazy 1981		42	0.56	48	0.00	53	0.06	55	0.06	60	0.05	71	0.05
Bacha 2000		39	0.57	22	0.00	41	0.11	36	0.27	6	0.49	29	0.36
Badura 1965		66	0.46	53	0.00	71	0.04	74	0.04	54	0.06	70	0.05
Barbosa 1983		21	0.64	29	0.00	13	0.12	13	0.53	2	0.71	7	0.61
Biret 1990		17	0.65	25	0.00	18	0.11	16	0.51	20	0.41	18	0.46
Blet 2003		61	0.50	87	0.00	59	0.08	47	0.08	36	0.18	48	0.12
Block 1995		65	0.46	55	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.12	27	0.27	41	0.18
Blumental 1952		36	0.59	75	0.00	36	0.07	39	0.23	70	0.04	52	0.10
Boshniakovich 1969		57	0.51	38	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.14	65	0.04	58	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		51	0.53	51	0.00	67	0.07	50	0.07	33	0.29	46	0.14
Bunin 1987		86	0.30	52	0.00	86	0.03	88	0.03	80	0.03	89	0.03
Bunin 1987b		87	0.28	64	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	65	0.04	84	0.03
Chiu 1999		31	0.60	8	0.02	38	0.08	38	0.23	17	0.35	33	0.28
Cohen 1997		49	0.54	73	0.00	46	0.06	60	0.06	5	0.49	43	0.17
Cortot 1951		69	0.45	71	0.00	70	0.04	81	0.04	41	0.16	57	0.08
Csalog 1996		53	0.53	65	0.00	22	0.10	31	0.35	7	0.51	20	0.42
Czerny 1949		45	0.55	42	0.00	54	0.07	49	0.07	70	0.04	68	0.05
Czerny 1990		6	0.70	6	0.02	10	0.11	10	0.61	18	0.47	12	0.54
Duchoud 2007		73	0.42	76	0.00	74	0.04	80	0.04	49	0.06	69	0.05
Ezaki 2006		15	0.65	12	0.01	24	0.08	26	0.42	26	0.38	21	0.40
Falvay 1989		25	0.62	17	0.00	31	0.08	33	0.30	15	0.49	26	0.38
Farrell 1958		16	0.65	34	0.00	9	0.10	12	0.57	6	0.62	8	0.59
Ferenczy 1958		71	0.43	81	0.00	77	0.05	65	0.05	83	0.03	78	0.04
Fliere 1977		20	0.64	16	0.01	23	0.07	24	0.46	51	0.06	42	0.17
Fou 1978		22	0.64	27	0.00	15	0.11	14	0.53	19	0.45	17	0.49
Francois 1956		55	0.52	61	0.00	57	0.06	57	0.06	30	0.40	45	0.15
Friedman 1923		43	0.55	21	0.00	62	0.09	46	0.09	40	0.19	47	0.13
Friedman 1923b		46	0.55	23	0.00	61	0.05	66	0.05	41	0.17	55	0.09
Friedman 1930		58	0.51	67	0.00	69	0.04	78	0.04	61	0.05	77	0.04
Garcia 2007		64	0.48	68	0.00	63	0.05	69	0.05	44	0.13	56	0.08
Garcia 2007b		56	0.52	28	0.00	50	0.06	54	0.06	35	0.25	49	0.12
Gierzod 1998		18	0.65	15	0.01	25	0.10	19	0.50	43	0.16	34	0.28
Gornostaeva 1994		60	0.50	66	0.00	58	0.07	48	0.07	42	0.14	53	0.10
Groot 1988		35	0.59	19	0.00	19	0.09	15	0.52	4	0.54	13	0.53
Harasiewicz 1955		26	0.61	46	0.00	29	0.07	23	0.46	38	0.20	32	0.30
Hatto 1993		14	0.66	33	0.00	16	0.09	21	0.48	25	0.31	25	0.39
Hatto 1997		11	0.67	7	0.02	14	0.13	20	0.50	25	0.32	23	0.40
Horowitz 1949		78	0.40	56	0.00	80	0.04	76	0.04	67	0.05	74	0.04
Indjic 1988		12	0.66	45	0.00	17	0.11	22	0.46	25	0.32	27	0.38
Kapell 1951		30	0.60	10	0.01	20	0.11	17	0.51	19	0.39	19	0.45
Kissin 1993		23	0.63	35	0.00	21	0.11	18	0.51	21	0.51	15	0.51
Kushner 1989		4	0.71	4	0.06	5	0.24	5	0.67	2	0.70	4	0.68
Luisada 1991		27	0.61	82	0.00	35	0.06	35	0.28	43	0.14	38	0.20
Lushtak 2004		5	0.71	13	0.01	4	0.19	6	0.65	3	0.75	3	0.70
Malcuzynski 1961		79	0.40	40	0.00	60	0.05	62	0.05	45	0.07	59	0.06
Magaloff 1978		37	0.58	43	0.00	40	0.08	41	0.18	26	0.30	37	0.23
Magin 1975		54	0.52	14	0.01	49	0.06	53	0.06	58	0.04	64	0.05
Michalowski 1933		88	0.27	83	0.00	88	0.04	82	0.04	83	0.03	86	0.03
Milkina 1970		13	0.66	9	0.01	7	0.29	7	0.64	15	0.54	9	0.59
Mohovich 1999		10	0.67	20	0.00	8	0.16	8	0.63	12	0.64	6	0.63
Moravec 1969		68	0.45	69	0.00	76	0.05	73	0.05	51	0.05	60	0.05
Morozova 2008		29	0.61	77	0.00	27	0.06	29	0.37	21	0.42	24	0.39
Neighaus 1950		48	0.54	62	0.00	47	0.06	58	0.06	73	0.04	72	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		75	0.41	84	0.00	73	0.04	77	0.04	84	0.03	83	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.61	39	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.29	36	0.21	35	0.25
Osinska 1989		7	0.69	5	0.02	6	0.23	4	0.68	14	0.59	5	0.63
Pachmann 1927		82	0.38	60	0.00	85	0.04	83	0.04	59	0.04	76	0.04
Paderewski 1930		77	0.40	49	0.00	75	0.05	71	0.05	73	0.03	75	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		38	0.57	78	0.00	56	0.05	68	0.05	32	0.24	50	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.46	18	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.15	25	0.39	36	0.24
Poblocka 1999		62	0.50	24	0.00	52	0.05	67	0.05	42	0.16	54	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		47	0.54	57	0.00	33	0.07	40	0.22	36	0.19	39	0.20
Rachmaninoff 1923		52	0.53	85	0.00	55	0.06	52	0.06	70	0.04	63	0.05
Rangell 2001		70	0.44	47	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	34	0.28	44	0.17
Richter 1976		83	0.37	58	0.00	79	0.04	79	0.04	80	0.03	85	0.03
Rosen 1989		32	0.60	70	0.00	32	0.06	32	0.34	32	0.28	31	0.31
Rosenthal 1930		85	0.35	54	0.00	84	0.04	85	0.04	78	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.41	88	0.00	78	0.05	63	0.05	51	0.06	66	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.40	79	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	46	0.08	73	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.38	31	0.00	82	0.05	70	0.05	61	0.04	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.36	72	0.00	83	0.04	84	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.04
Rossi 2007		44	0.55	50	0.00	51	0.07	51	0.07	12	0.45	40	0.18
Rubinstein 1939		2	0.75	3	0.07	2	0.42	3	0.70	3	0.76	2	0.73
Rubinstein 1952		3	0.74	1	0.48	1	0.47	2	0.78	1	0.80	1	0.79
Rubinstein 1966		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.51	44	0.00	65	0.06	56	0.06	69	0.04	67	0.05
Shebanova 2002		24	0.62	36	0.00	28	0.10	25	0.45	34	0.26	30	0.34
Smith 1975		33	0.60	26	0.00	34	0.07	30	0.36	16	0.39	28	0.37
Sokolov 2002		63	0.49	89	0.00	66	0.06	59	0.06	58	0.04	62	0.05
Sztompka 1959		34	0.59	80	0.00	39	0.07	37	0.25	60	0.05	51	0.11
Tomsic 1995		40	0.57	37	0.00	30	0.07	28	0.38	3	0.65	16	0.50
Uninsky 1932		72	0.42	63	0.00	72	0.05	72	0.05	82	0.03	79	0.04
Uninsky 1971		74	0.42	90	0.00	68	0.05	64	0.05	57	0.06	65	0.05
Wasowski 1980		41	0.57	30	0.00	48	0.05	61	0.05	57	0.06	61	0.05
Zak 1937		8	0.68	11	0.01	12	0.17	11	0.59	15	0.51	11	0.55
Zak 1951		9	0.68	41	0.00	11	0.12	9	0.62	15	0.50	10	0.56
Average		1	0.77	2	0.15	3	0.45	1	0.82	30	0.33	14	0.52
Random 1		91	-0.15	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.03	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	57	0.04	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.07	74	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	48	0.05	88	0.03

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).