Rossi 2007

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

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).