Csalog 1996

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