Grinberg 1951

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   14  0.9629  0.0012  0.154  0.6716  0.3813  0.50
Bacha 1997   8  0.9721  0.018  0.2113  0.5916  0.554  0.57
Barbosa 1983   34  0.9140  0.0035  0.1230  0.1246  0.0537  0.08
Biret 1990   17  0.9514  0.0217  0.2017  0.5413  0.597  0.56
Block 1995   44  0.8245  0.0044  0.0839  0.0847  0.0443  0.06
Brailowsky 1960   28  0.9246  0.0033  0.0838  0.0828  0.1033  0.09
Chiu 1999   27  0.9253  0.0028  0.1229  0.1227  0.0827  0.10
Clidat 1994   22  0.946  0.0424  0.1422  0.4322  0.2020  0.29
Cohen 1997   26  0.923  0.1119  0.139  0.622  0.526  0.57
Cortot 1951   20  0.9420  0.0122  0.1923  0.4218  0.5114  0.46
Csalog 1996   5  0.9737  0.007  0.2012  0.5917  0.4710  0.53
Czerny 1990   24  0.9317  0.0121  0.1420  0.4627  0.1024  0.21
Ezaki 2006   23  0.9426  0.0023  0.1924  0.4039  0.0625  0.15
Ferenczy 1958   29  0.9227  0.0032  0.0837  0.0827  0.1131  0.09
Fliere 1977   35  0.9012  0.0236  0.1033  0.1033  0.0734  0.08
Fou 1978   42  0.8525  0.0042  0.0647  0.0645  0.0644  0.06
Francois 1956   9  0.9718  0.0111  0.148  0.6218  0.4212  0.51
Grinberg 1951   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Hatto 1993   4  0.9724  0.004  0.212  0.7314  0.543  0.63
Hatto 1997   7  0.9710  0.035  0.333  0.7314  0.541  0.63
Indjic 2001   6  0.972  0.132  0.211  0.7314  0.542  0.63
Jonas 1947   18  0.9530  0.0018  0.1714  0.5837  0.0823  0.22
Kapell 1951   1  0.984  0.083  0.176  0.6315  0.479  0.54
Kiepura 1999   43  0.8443  0.0043  0.0646  0.0640  0.0548  0.05
Kushner 1989   10  0.965  0.069  0.2719  0.506  0.618  0.55
Luisada 1991   19  0.9423  0.0120  0.1321  0.4518  0.3618  0.40
Lushtak 2004   31  0.9131  0.0031  0.1035  0.1038  0.0540  0.07
Magaloff 1978   40  0.8644  0.0039  0.0744  0.0740  0.0542  0.06
Meguri 1997   16  0.968  0.0316  0.1516  0.5624  0.3317  0.43
Milkina 1970   39  0.867  0.0440  0.1034  0.1032  0.0736  0.08
Mohovich 1999   3  0.979  0.036  0.2515  0.576  0.4611  0.51
Niedzielski 1931   32  0.9151  0.0026  0.1426  0.2726  0.2422  0.25
Ohlsson 1999   37  0.9042  0.0030  0.0742  0.0739  0.0645  0.06
Olejniczak 1990   25  0.9352  0.0027  0.0836  0.0834  0.0838  0.08
Osinska 1989   41  0.8522  0.0141  0.0645  0.0645  0.0549  0.05
Rangell 2001   45  0.8033  0.0045  0.0549  0.0529  0.0941  0.07
Richter 1976   33  0.9115  0.0229  0.1228  0.1228  0.0928  0.10
Rubinstein 1938   46  0.7839  0.0046  0.0840  0.0839  0.0546  0.06
Rubinstein 1952   47  0.7349  0.0047  0.0741  0.0750  0.0451  0.05
Rubinstein 1961   50  0.6847  0.0050  0.0743  0.0745  0.0547  0.06
Rubinstein 1966   49  0.6848  0.0049  0.0550  0.0546  0.0652  0.05
Shebanova 2002   38  0.8934  0.0038  0.1131  0.1131  0.0832  0.09
Smidowicz 1948   11  0.9616  0.0213  0.1710  0.6123  0.3116  0.43
Smidowicz 1948b   12  0.9635  0.0014  0.1611  0.6123  0.3115  0.43
Smith 1975   48  0.7141  0.0048  0.0548  0.0548  0.0550  0.05
Sofronitsky 1949   2  0.971  0.241  0.247  0.6310  0.525  0.57
Sztompka 1959   36  0.9019  0.0137  0.1427  0.1436  0.0729  0.10
Tomsic 1995   21  0.9428  0.0025  0.1225  0.3244  0.0726  0.15
Uninsky 1971   15  0.9632  0.0010  0.1318  0.5120  0.3019  0.39
Wasowski 1980   30  0.9113  0.0234  0.1132  0.1133  0.0730  0.09
Average Tempo   13  0.9611  0.0215  0.185  0.6528  0.1121  0.27
Random 1   52  0.0136  0.0052  0.0252  0.0240  0.0453  0.03
Random 2   53  -0.0538  0.0053  0.0253  0.0212  0.2839  0.07
Random 3   51  0.0750  0.0051  0.0351  0.0321  0.2435  0.08

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).