Pachmann 1927

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		31	0.43	37	0.00	31	0.07	32	0.24	65	0.04	37	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		82	0.12	74	0.00	73	0.04	64	0.04	88	0.02	75	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		51	0.32	61	0.00	59	0.06	48	0.06	79	0.03	65	0.04
Bacha 2000		32	0.41	51	0.00	54	0.06	46	0.06	40	0.16	34	0.10
Badura 1965		64	0.28	39	0.00	48	0.05	52	0.05	77	0.03	64	0.04
Barbosa 1983		13	0.52	20	0.01	8	0.18	5	0.62	11	0.51	3	0.56
Biret 1990		46	0.36	63	0.00	56	0.05	58	0.05	50	0.05	49	0.05
Blet 2003		26	0.45	76	0.00	34	0.07	30	0.25	66	0.05	33	0.11
Block 1995		34	0.40	25	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.16	51	0.04	41	0.08
Blumental 1952		87	0.06	84	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.01	88	0.01
Boshniakovich 1969		20	0.48	10	0.03	9	0.13	11	0.54	19	0.49	6	0.51
Brailowsky 1960		22	0.48	45	0.00	24	0.06	23	0.36	25	0.32	15	0.34
Bunin 1987		11	0.53	5	0.04	7	0.22	8	0.60	14	0.43	7	0.51
Bunin 1987b		10	0.53	3	0.07	6	0.18	7	0.61	14	0.43	5	0.51
Chiu 1999		3	0.57	1	0.29	1	0.28	2	0.70	3	0.66	1	0.68
Cohen 1997		42	0.38	44	0.00	36	0.07	35	0.19	15	0.40	20	0.28
Cortot 1951		78	0.16	69	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	88	0.01	90	0.01
Csalog 1996		16	0.52	16	0.01	15	0.11	16	0.50	18	0.46	10	0.48
Czerny 1949		77	0.18	89	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	72	0.03	85	0.02
Czerny 1990		55	0.31	77	0.00	63	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.03
Duchoud 2007		58	0.30	46	0.00	71	0.05	59	0.05	80	0.03	63	0.04
Ezaki 2006		37	0.39	75	0.00	51	0.05	57	0.05	76	0.03	51	0.04
Falvay 1989		17	0.51	40	0.00	21	0.09	20	0.45	46	0.06	26	0.16
Farrell 1958		39	0.39	64	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	34	0.21	35	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		74	0.22	79	0.00	85	0.03	76	0.03	70	0.03	76	0.03
Fliere 1977		4	0.57	9	0.04	3	0.21	3	0.68	19	0.45	4	0.55
Fou 1978		1	0.61	2	0.13	2	0.20	1	0.72	11	0.49	2	0.59
Francois 1956		36	0.40	47	0.00	52	0.06	47	0.06	80	0.03	67	0.04
Friedman 1923		84	0.11	30	0.00	81	0.02	80	0.02	62	0.05	83	0.03
Friedman 1923b		81	0.13	34	0.00	79	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.06	66	0.04
Friedman 1930		79	0.16	24	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	47	0.06	47	0.05
Garcia 2007		76	0.20	48	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	65	0.03	78	0.03
Garcia 2007b		85	0.10	54	0.00	76	0.02	83	0.02	50	0.05	82	0.03
Gierzod 1998		56	0.31	85	0.00	64	0.03	69	0.03	70	0.03	77	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		44	0.37	80	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	71	0.03	48	0.05
Groot 1988		2	0.59	4	0.05	4	0.19	6	0.61	22	0.36	12	0.47
Harasiewicz 1955		40	0.38	31	0.00	22	0.07	25	0.34	45	0.05	31	0.13
Hatto 1993		70	0.24	81	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.10	55	0.05	45	0.07
Hatto 1997		67	0.25	26	0.00	23	0.08	36	0.18	78	0.03	44	0.07
Horowitz 1949		30	0.43	41	0.00	33	0.08	28	0.27	39	0.10	28	0.16
Indjic 1988		66	0.26	62	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.15	49	0.05	38	0.09
Kapell 1951		48	0.34	17	0.01	57	0.05	50	0.05	76	0.03	56	0.04
Kissin 1993		23	0.48	27	0.00	20	0.09	19	0.45	47	0.06	29	0.16
Kushner 1989		54	0.32	32	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	82	0.03	73	0.03
Luisada 1991		50	0.33	70	0.00	58	0.04	63	0.04	80	0.03	68	0.03
Lushtak 2004		19	0.49	12	0.02	10	0.12	17	0.47	33	0.23	16	0.33
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.48	60	0.00	26	0.09	26	0.34	54	0.04	32	0.12
Magaloff 1978		12	0.52	6	0.04	5	0.15	4	0.65	18	0.32	13	0.46
Magin 1975		73	0.22	55	0.00	72	0.05	55	0.05	70	0.03	55	0.04
Michalowski 1933		83	0.12	56	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.04	74	0.03
Milkina 1970		33	0.40	65	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.12	56	0.05	40	0.08
Mohovich 1999		8	0.54	66	0.00	17	0.11	14	0.51	35	0.20	17	0.32
Moravec 1969		69	0.24	86	0.00	83	0.02	82	0.02	82	0.03	84	0.02
Morozova 2008		57	0.30	49	0.00	50	0.05	49	0.05	81	0.03	61	0.04
Neighaus 1950		14	0.52	15	0.01	11	0.13	13	0.53	47	0.07	25	0.19
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.29	22	0.01	53	0.05	51	0.05	62	0.04	54	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		29	0.43	18	0.01	27	0.09	29	0.25	65	0.04	36	0.10
Osinska 1989		41	0.38	52	0.00	45	0.04	60	0.04	61	0.05	52	0.04
Pachmann 1927		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Paderewski 1930		35	0.40	19	0.01	28	0.06	31	0.25	23	0.25	21	0.25
Perlemuter 1992		27	0.45	36	0.00	29	0.07	27	0.32	47	0.06	30	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		43	0.37	23	0.01	38	0.05	40	0.13	32	0.19	27	0.16
Poblocka 1999		38	0.39	67	0.00	47	0.05	56	0.05	87	0.03	53	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		71	0.24	82	0.00	74	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.03	72	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		62	0.28	87	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	66	0.04	71	0.03
Rangell 2001		28	0.43	83	0.00	25	0.08	22	0.37	27	0.26	18	0.31
Richter 1976		18	0.50	11	0.03	16	0.10	18	0.47	19	0.34	14	0.40
Rosen 1989		24	0.46	28	0.00	35	0.09	33	0.22	73	0.03	42	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		80	0.15	88	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	81	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		75	0.22	57	0.00	66	0.03	72	0.03	47	0.05	59	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		72	0.23	90	0.00	61	0.03	71	0.03	57	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.25	38	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	68	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		65	0.27	78	0.00	60	0.05	54	0.05	46	0.05	50	0.05
Rossi 2007		86	0.09	71	0.00	78	0.02	81	0.02	51	0.04	70	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.28	14	0.01	41	0.06	42	0.12	17	0.41	24	0.22
Rubinstein 1952		5	0.56	21	0.01	14	0.19	9	0.58	17	0.44	8	0.51
Rubinstein 1966		25	0.46	58	0.00	30	0.07	24	0.34	38	0.19	22	0.25
Schilhawsky 1960		47	0.36	50	0.00	46	0.04	62	0.04	53	0.05	60	0.04
Shebanova 2002		15	0.52	33	0.00	19	0.08	21	0.44	43	0.12	23	0.23
Smith 1975		45	0.37	42	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.15	78	0.03	43	0.07
Sokolov 2002		53	0.32	53	0.00	67	0.03	74	0.03	77	0.03	69	0.03
Sztompka 1959		61	0.28	59	0.00	75	0.04	61	0.04	74	0.04	57	0.04
Tomsic 1995		9	0.53	13	0.02	18	0.10	15	0.51	34	0.18	19	0.30
Uninsky 1932		63	0.28	29	0.00	62	0.03	75	0.03	56	0.05	62	0.04
Uninsky 1971		49	0.34	43	0.00	55	0.06	45	0.06	68	0.03	58	0.04
Wasowski 1980		52	0.32	35	0.00	32	0.08	34	0.21	75	0.03	39	0.08
Zak 1937		6	0.55	7	0.04	13	0.17	10	0.55	15	0.42	9	0.48
Zak 1951		7	0.55	8	0.04	12	0.12	12	0.54	17	0.41	11	0.47
Random 1		88	-0.02	68	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	29	0.20	46	0.06
Random 2		90	-0.10	72	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	83	0.02	86	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.06	73	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01	89	0.01

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).