Rubinstein 1952

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   43  0.6551  0.0041  0.0645  0.0640  0.0940  0.07
Bacha 1997   49  0.6052  0.0049  0.0547  0.0549  0.0651  0.05
Barbosa 1983   11  0.7835  0.0012  0.2110  0.5343  0.0619  0.18
Biret 1990   48  0.6237  0.0046  0.0550  0.0535  0.1043  0.07
Block 1995   17  0.7713  0.0119  0.1323  0.3128  0.1017  0.18
Brailowsky 1960   26  0.7118  0.0127  0.1427  0.1439  0.0829  0.11
Chiu 1999   12  0.7833  0.0014  0.1214  0.4427  0.0815  0.19
Clidat 1994   8  0.788  0.0211  0.179  0.5347  0.0616  0.18
Cohen 1997   19  0.7519  0.0116  0.1317  0.4245  0.0621  0.16
Cortot 1951   50  0.6038  0.0050  0.0741  0.0744  0.0650  0.06
Csalog 1996   30  0.7016  0.0132  0.1130  0.1143  0.0733  0.09
Czerny 1990   28  0.7130  0.0031  0.1229  0.1247  0.0636  0.08
Ezaki 2006   6  0.795  0.068  0.185  0.6241  0.0614  0.19
Ferenczy 1958   21  0.7527  0.0024  0.1124  0.2833  0.0724  0.14
Fliere 1977   23  0.7448  0.0025  0.1025  0.2239  0.0727  0.12
Fou 1978   7  0.783  0.163  0.168  0.5422  0.245  0.36
Francois 1956   45  0.6442  0.0045  0.0837  0.0842  0.0744  0.07
Grinberg 1951   47  0.6241  0.0048  0.0548  0.0547  0.0652  0.05
Hatto 1993   38  0.6744  0.0038  0.0740  0.0748  0.0649  0.06
Hatto 1997   41  0.6636  0.0043  0.0838  0.0848  0.0637  0.07
Indjic 2001   39  0.6632  0.0042  0.0935  0.0949  0.0539  0.07
Jonas 1947   35  0.6829  0.0034  0.1033  0.1049  0.0538  0.07
Kapell 1951   33  0.6850  0.0036  0.0839  0.0850  0.0548  0.06
Kiepura 1999   15  0.777  0.0310  0.1318  0.4117  0.324  0.36
Kushner 1989   46  0.6343  0.0047  0.0549  0.0539  0.0847  0.06
Luisada 1991   42  0.6645  0.0044  0.0644  0.0631  0.1034  0.08
Lushtak 2004   27  0.7131  0.0030  0.1032  0.1049  0.0446  0.06
Magaloff 1978   24  0.7314  0.0122  0.1321  0.3826  0.148  0.23
Meguri 1997   37  0.6821  0.0133  0.1328  0.1339  0.0832  0.10
Milkina 1970   10  0.7824  0.0013  0.1211  0.5236  0.0812  0.20
Mohovich 1999   29  0.7020  0.0123  0.1722  0.3243  0.0625  0.14
Niedzielski 1931   40  0.6634  0.0035  0.1031  0.1033  0.1031  0.10
Ohlsson 1999   14  0.7728  0.0017  0.1120  0.4038  0.0720  0.17
Olejniczak 1990   25  0.7239  0.0026  0.0826  0.1635  0.0928  0.12
Osinska 1989   4  0.8017  0.016  0.176  0.6032  0.097  0.23
Rangell 2001   32  0.6915  0.0129  0.0836  0.0824  0.2326  0.14
Richter 1976   18  0.764  0.117  0.1213  0.5135  0.0813  0.20
Rubinstein 1938   16  0.7711  0.0115  0.1319  0.416  0.513  0.46
Rubinstein 1952   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Rubinstein 1961   1  0.811  0.231  0.232  0.634  0.711  0.67
Rubinstein 1966   2  0.8010  0.025  0.154  0.636  0.662  0.64
Shebanova 2002   3  0.806  0.044  0.203  0.6339  0.0710  0.21
Smidowicz 1948   34  0.6826  0.0039  0.0646  0.0642  0.0842  0.07
Smidowicz 1948b   36  0.6825  0.0040  0.0742  0.0741  0.0841  0.07
Smith 1975   31  0.6940  0.0028  0.1034  0.108  0.559  0.23
Sofronitsky 1949   44  0.6449  0.0037  0.0643  0.0641  0.0745  0.06
Sztompka 1959   5  0.7912  0.019  0.137  0.5530  0.0811  0.21
Tomsic 1995   22  0.749  0.0221  0.1516  0.4441  0.0718  0.18
Uninsky 1971   20  0.7522  0.0020  0.1912  0.5150  0.0522  0.16
Wasowski 1980   13  0.7723  0.0018  0.1315  0.4445  0.0523  0.15
Average Tempo   9  0.782  0.172  0.171  0.7237  0.086  0.24
Random 1   51  0.0347  0.0051  0.0451  0.0412  0.3030  0.11
Random 2   52  -0.0153  0.0052  0.0252  0.0215  0.3335  0.08
Random 3   53  -0.0446  0.0053  0.0253  0.0246  0.0453  0.03

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).