Afanassiev 2001

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		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Anderszewski 2003		75	0.36	57	0.00	66	0.04	54	0.04	84	0.02	80	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		68	0.48	84	0.00	55	0.04	52	0.04	50	0.05	71	0.04
Bacha 2000		64	0.51	30	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	53	0.05	65	0.04
Badura 1965		34	0.65	43	0.00	16	0.08	12	0.37	1	0.63	5	0.48
Barbosa 1983		18	0.71	10	0.02	13	0.09	11	0.39	8	0.49	8	0.44
Biret 1990		21	0.70	21	0.01	33	0.07	28	0.24	27	0.25	31	0.24
Blet 2003		5	0.80	29	0.00	8	0.10	7	0.43	6	0.52	6	0.47
Block 1995		65	0.51	88	0.00	80	0.03	73	0.03	71	0.03	81	0.03
Blumental 1952		77	0.33	70	0.00	48	0.04	51	0.04	38	0.12	55	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		58	0.55	76	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	72	0.03	82	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		60	0.52	25	0.00	81	0.04	65	0.04	67	0.04	67	0.04
Bunin 1987		41	0.63	20	0.01	45	0.05	42	0.10	36	0.21	45	0.14
Bunin 1987b		40	0.63	79	0.00	46	0.09	43	0.09	36	0.21	41	0.14
Chiu 1999		61	0.52	23	0.01	51	0.03	71	0.03	42	0.12	58	0.06
Cohen 1997		87	0.15	51	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02
Cortot 1951		37	0.64	80	0.00	43	0.04	44	0.09	29	0.29	38	0.16
Csalog 1996		53	0.58	39	0.00	72	0.03	72	0.03	31	0.27	50	0.09
Czerny 1949		7	0.78	6	0.04	4	0.25	2	0.54	5	0.59	2	0.56
Czerny 1990		1	0.83	2	0.16	2	0.24	3	0.54	4	0.52	3	0.53
Duchoud 2007		22	0.70	17	0.01	11	0.07	17	0.34	21	0.41	14	0.37
Ezaki 2006		2	0.82	1	0.25	1	0.25	1	0.62	2	0.61	1	0.61
Falvay 1989		14	0.74	18	0.01	23	0.06	26	0.27	21	0.31	24	0.29
Farrell 1958		55	0.56	58	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		44	0.62	71	0.00	44	0.04	46	0.07	27	0.30	43	0.14
Fliere 1977		12	0.74	55	0.00	25	0.05	24	0.27	45	0.10	36	0.16
Fou 1978		48	0.58	46	0.00	49	0.04	53	0.04	46	0.08	59	0.06
Francois 1956		4	0.81	3	0.09	3	0.19	4	0.51	4	0.56	4	0.53
Friedman 1923		86	0.18	61	0.00	68	0.04	58	0.04	21	0.36	46	0.12
Friedman 1923b		85	0.19	40	0.00	67	0.03	68	0.03	20	0.36	49	0.10
Friedman 1930		81	0.26	85	0.00	65	0.04	63	0.04	40	0.12	52	0.07
Garcia 2007		79	0.27	53	0.00	83	0.02	83	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.02
Garcia 2007b		88	0.04	12	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02	83	0.02	90	0.02
Gierzod 1998		46	0.62	19	0.01	34	0.05	37	0.13	40	0.15	44	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		13	0.74	11	0.02	10	0.10	9	0.40	14	0.37	13	0.38
Groot 1988		8	0.78	5	0.06	18	0.10	18	0.33	20	0.36	19	0.34
Harasiewicz 1955		69	0.47	67	0.00	42	0.04	45	0.08	46	0.05	62	0.06
Hatto 1993		84	0.20	38	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	47	0.04	72	0.04
Hatto 1997		76	0.34	8	0.02	47	0.05	49	0.05	39	0.11	53	0.07
Horowitz 1949		70	0.47	86	0.00	75	0.05	48	0.05	54	0.05	63	0.05
Indjic 1988		82	0.25	69	0.00	62	0.03	74	0.03	42	0.09	64	0.05
Kapell 1951		25	0.70	36	0.00	40	0.05	34	0.17	29	0.34	30	0.24
Kissin 1993		29	0.67	66	0.00	36	0.04	35	0.15	28	0.25	35	0.19
Kushner 1989		15	0.74	74	0.00	12	0.09	16	0.34	16	0.37	16	0.35
Luisada 1991		62	0.52	59	0.00	50	0.04	59	0.04	68	0.04	66	0.04
Lushtak 2004		39	0.63	72	0.00	27	0.06	23	0.28	27	0.22	29	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		6	0.78	22	0.01	9	0.09	6	0.43	15	0.42	10	0.42
Magaloff 1978		47	0.59	50	0.00	59	0.03	67	0.03	52	0.04	75	0.03
Magin 1975		71	0.40	77	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	58	0.04	69	0.04
Michalowski 1933		80	0.27	44	0.00	64	0.03	66	0.03	43	0.13	60	0.06
Milkina 1970		30	0.66	56	0.00	52	0.04	55	0.04	61	0.04	70	0.04
Mohovich 1999		11	0.76	26	0.00	19	0.07	19	0.32	21	0.36	18	0.34
Moravec 1969		19	0.71	62	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.10	18	0.36	34	0.19
Morozova 2008		38	0.63	7	0.03	7	0.09	21	0.30	11	0.29	25	0.29
Neighaus 1950		24	0.70	63	0.00	15	0.09	14	0.35	25	0.33	20	0.34
Niedzielski 1931		67	0.49	87	0.00	79	0.03	69	0.03	74	0.02	84	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		33	0.66	41	0.00	38	0.04	38	0.11	29	0.21	40	0.15
Osinska 1989		9	0.77	60	0.00	17	0.08	15	0.35	6	0.47	11	0.41
Pachmann 1927		66	0.50	24	0.01	73	0.04	60	0.04	28	0.28	47	0.11
Paderewski 1930		59	0.53	89	0.00	74	0.04	56	0.04	57	0.03	78	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		31	0.66	28	0.00	37	0.05	36	0.14	32	0.19	37	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.55	81	0.00	57	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.04	68	0.04
Poblocka 1999		17	0.72	27	0.00	28	0.07	30	0.23	23	0.32	26	0.27
Rabcewiczowa 1932		27	0.68	37	0.00	22	0.06	22	0.28	8	0.47	15	0.36
Rachmaninoff 1923		43	0.62	34	0.00	31	0.05	33	0.19	25	0.26	32	0.22
Rangell 2001		49	0.58	15	0.01	58	0.03	76	0.03	44	0.11	61	0.06
Richter 1976		54	0.57	90	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	61	0.04	77	0.03
Rosen 1989		23	0.70	4	0.06	6	0.11	8	0.42	12	0.47	9	0.44
Rosenthal 1930		57	0.55	33	0.00	61	0.04	57	0.04	37	0.19	51	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.36	73	0.00	82	0.03	75	0.03	68	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.29	75	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	79	0.03	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		63	0.51	83	0.00	60	0.03	70	0.03	48	0.06	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		72	0.37	68	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	85	0.02	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		73	0.36	52	0.00	35	0.05	41	0.10	20	0.22	39	0.15
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.24	14	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.02	74	0.03	83	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		51	0.58	9	0.02	71	0.03	81	0.03	54	0.06	74	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		35	0.65	42	0.00	54	0.06	47	0.06	27	0.31	42	0.14
Schilhawsky 1960		52	0.58	54	0.00	39	0.04	40	0.10	44	0.10	48	0.10
Shebanova 2002		42	0.63	64	0.00	53	0.05	50	0.05	42	0.11	54	0.07
Smith 1975		28	0.68	45	0.00	24	0.05	20	0.30	41	0.13	33	0.20
Sokolov 2002		20	0.70	65	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.23	30	0.29	28	0.26
Sztompka 1959		16	0.72	47	0.00	21	0.06	13	0.37	18	0.39	12	0.38
Tomsic 1995		10	0.77	49	0.00	14	0.07	10	0.40	12	0.48	7	0.44
Uninsky 1932		45	0.62	16	0.01	30	0.07	32	0.21	18	0.43	23	0.30
Uninsky 1971		26	0.68	13	0.02	20	0.07	25	0.27	21	0.41	21	0.33
Wasowski 1980		50	0.58	48	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	37	0.12	57	0.06
Zak 1937		36	0.65	32	0.00	29	0.06	31	0.22	18	0.33	27	0.27
Zak 1951		32	0.66	31	0.00	26	0.06	27	0.26	20	0.36	22	0.31
Average		3	0.81	35	0.00	5	0.13	5	0.47	31	0.24	17	0.34
Random 1		91	-0.16	78	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.15	91	0.00	90	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.02	85	0.02
Random 3		89	0.01	82	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	24	0.24	56	0.07

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).