who are those two pianists?

MIDI shmidi. I'm talking about rendering what's on the page, and if realised, as written, then nothing else need be added. It's a fairly simple concept that easily understandable and requires that no more words be put in one's mouth. There is no false premise. Simply the idea that one REALISES rather than interprets.

But I think a great deal of enlightment comes from purely analyzing a score. Not just harmonically - structurally too and thematically. (thematically.. is that a word..)

...
To me, the score and the composer's intention is only a guideline to my own interpretation and my own musical experience...

For starters, I must say I don't understand anyone who states that they disagree with a composer. On what basis? Who are you to disagree? Do you not think that the composer knew what he was doing? Are you a more knowledgeable musician, than say, Beethoven? What compositional expertise do you possess that allows you to disagree with Bach, Beethoven, whomever?
I've come to really dislike the word, interpretation, altogether. It is a far too loosely used word. I, for one, want to hear what the composer wrote, not what Joe Blow wrote. Why more performers don't simply include their own names in the programme is something I've often wondered about when listening to a performance (i.e. Sonata in f minor, Op. 2 No. 1...Beethoven/Joe). Granted any performance will have it's own personal fingerprint and you could make the case for including the performer's name with ANY performance, but I'm talking about performers who take such liberties as to have basically "re-written" the piece. There are some very famous pianists quite guilty of such practices (and, amazingly, they're lauded as brilliant, insightful performers, simply because they've done something different...whether, or not, what they've done has anything to do with what's actually on the page).
I've often thought of this comparison...the leaders of two countries with diametrically opposed ideology come to the table with the intent of finding a mutual peace between their countries. Since neither speak the other's language there is an interpreter. Leader A says, "We realise that we have long been opposed to each other's way of thinking about many things, but realise that finding a way to meet on common ground, with the end result being a mutual accord, is the only way for both of us to continue to mutually exist and interact...blah blah blah." The interpreter takes all this in and then turns to leader B and says, "Well, I know WHAT he said, but what he really MEANT was, "We see you here, but know you're a lying scumbag with a hidden agenda and would love nothing better than to nuke you off the face of the map." Now, what happens? Of course, ensuing chaos. Interpretation, is not about what YOU THINK the composer is saying, but WHAT the composer actually DID say. Did I just hear Beethoven, or was that Joe Blow? I thought Beethoven wrote it this way? Maybe he didn't. After all, Joe is deemed the genius/expert so he must be right.
"Interpretation" will, of course, continue to be something that's never truly defined, simply, because opinion exists. There are no two musicians who play a work the same way, thus leaving any score open to a multitude of thought. However, everything necessary for a successful performance of any work is included right there on the page in front of you. A composer had an idea and felt it strong enough to share with the rest of the world, so he/she developed that idea and penned it...with (in many cases, but not all) directions as to how to realise his ideas.
I've heard maybe two pianists in my lifetime who have followed a score almost to the tee, and, in both cases those performances were the most exciting performances of a work that I've heard from anyone. Why? Because, the composer actually KNEW what he was doing when he wrote the work, and, all the poetry, dialogue, drama, tenderness, etc., etc., are included in his/her work already. It's simply our job to realise (as opposed to interpret) it.

No, I was pointing out a logical flaw in the direction you took it in. Apologies if giving a verifiable example of what happens when you actually realise ideals (which you preached as your foundations for judgement) is inconvenient to you...

To me, the score and the composer's intention is only a guideline to my own interpretation and my own musical experience.

But I regard each performance as a gift. It's the thought that counts and is to be appreciated. Thoughtless/careless gifts are disappointing.

But in music you have to have a heart, and everybody's heart is different therefore you will get different interpretations.

But I think a great deal of enlightment comes from purely analyzing a score. Not just harmonically - structurally too and thematically. (thematically.. is that a word..)

You are laboring under some mistaken impression that it's the holy, spiritual duty of all pianists to faithfully realize a composer's built-in ideas and emotions. While I agree with you that a composer should not be ignored and I personlly try to respect a composer's wishes, not everyone feels the same way. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's no law that says 'Thou shalt play it as Chopin intended or else'. If there is, it's only your own personal credo and you're applying it to everyone else around you.

Chopin's nocturne in Eb minor is no longer Chopin's nocturne in Eb minor when the score is not followed, it is an imitation and should no longer be called by it's name, but "variation on ____" or "paraphrase on ____". It is the same for any piece of music. It loses it's value and purpose when a performer deviates too far from the score.

It is interesting that Chopin got brought up....

What annoys me is when I add ornaments to an older piece and someone will inevitably say "oh, that's not in the score...tsk, tsk". Well, some performance practices were understood to be done, even if not specified by the composer. They usually relied on the good common sense of their fellow performers......