Boshniakovich 1969

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		49	0.55	70	0.00	71	0.03	72	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		75	0.43	29	0.00	75	0.05	53	0.05	61	0.03	60	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		35	0.59	33	0.00	44	0.06	40	0.14	67	0.03	53	0.06
Bacha 2000		59	0.50	49	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	65	0.04	58	0.04
Badura 1965		40	0.57	7	0.03	28	0.05	28	0.21	31	0.28	23	0.24
Barbosa 1983		76	0.41	42	0.00	21	0.05	42	0.13	63	0.04	52	0.07
Biret 1990		38	0.57	64	0.00	64	0.03	74	0.03	71	0.03	83	0.03
Blet 2003		44	0.57	36	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	76	0.03	61	0.04
Block 1995		12	0.67	3	0.15	4	0.20	1	0.65	1	0.56	1	0.60
Blumental 1952		48	0.55	12	0.01	34	0.06	37	0.18	22	0.23	27	0.20
Boshniakovich 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Brailowsky 1960		7	0.71	43	0.00	14	0.07	20	0.30	22	0.34	14	0.32
Bunin 1987		42	0.57	59	0.00	60	0.04	54	0.04	74	0.03	81	0.03
Bunin 1987b		41	0.57	85	0.00	59	0.04	56	0.04	74	0.03	72	0.03
Chiu 1999		58	0.51	68	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.12	59	0.04	51	0.07
Cohen 1997		82	0.29	69	0.00	63	0.03	64	0.03	39	0.14	54	0.06
Cortot 1951		50	0.54	41	0.00	66	0.03	67	0.03	47	0.07	57	0.05
Csalog 1996		78	0.35	55	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	77	0.03	88	0.02
Czerny 1949		55	0.53	58	0.00	76	0.04	62	0.04	65	0.04	62	0.04
Czerny 1990		26	0.63	71	0.00	53	0.04	58	0.04	58	0.04	65	0.04
Duchoud 2007		70	0.44	52	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03
Ezaki 2006		20	0.64	46	0.00	39	0.05	32	0.19	69	0.03	47	0.08
Falvay 1989		24	0.63	32	0.00	35	0.05	33	0.19	71	0.04	44	0.09
Farrell 1958		18	0.65	17	0.01	18	0.07	9	0.43	5	0.44	6	0.43
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.38	86	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.02
Fliere 1977		1	0.76	4	0.10	3	0.23	2	0.59	11	0.41	3	0.49
Fou 1978		14	0.67	2	0.17	2	0.19	3	0.58	8	0.51	2	0.54
Francois 1956		68	0.46	65	0.00	61	0.03	70	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		88	0.06	76	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	67	0.05	66	0.04
Friedman 1923b		87	0.06	87	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	66	0.05	82	0.03
Friedman 1930		84	0.23	80	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	65	0.04	78	0.03
Garcia 2007		65	0.47	25	0.00	52	0.06	48	0.06	14	0.39	32	0.15
Garcia 2007b		80	0.35	72	0.00	65	0.03	76	0.03	23	0.21	50	0.08
Gierzod 1998		29	0.62	19	0.01	50	0.05	50	0.05	48	0.05	55	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		5	0.73	6	0.03	5	0.15	5	0.53	11	0.39	5	0.45
Groot 1988		17	0.65	50	0.00	16	0.06	12	0.37	38	0.16	24	0.24
Harasiewicz 1955		56	0.53	9	0.02	12	0.07	13	0.37	37	0.16	25	0.24
Hatto 1993		86	0.22	77	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.03	84	0.03
Hatto 1997		83	0.25	88	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Horowitz 1949		28	0.62	5	0.05	10	0.08	22	0.29	29	0.26	18	0.27
Indjic 1988		85	0.23	74	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02
Kapell 1951		73	0.43	60	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.02	86	0.02
Kissin 1993		8	0.70	20	0.01	13	0.07	11	0.38	25	0.30	12	0.34
Kushner 1989		10	0.69	38	0.00	15	0.07	16	0.33	37	0.21	20	0.26
Luisada 1991		32	0.61	40	0.00	51	0.05	52	0.05	43	0.12	48	0.08
Lushtak 2004		33	0.60	23	0.01	36	0.05	25	0.26	68	0.03	46	0.09
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.73	22	0.01	6	0.10	8	0.51	24	0.29	8	0.38
Magaloff 1978		4	0.73	1	0.19	1	0.19	6	0.52	7	0.47	4	0.49
Magin 1975		30	0.61	27	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	28	0.21	31	0.16
Michalowski 1933		79	0.35	62	0.00	70	0.03	69	0.03	67	0.04	76	0.03
Milkina 1970		25	0.63	81	0.00	27	0.06	14	0.35	28	0.26	16	0.30
Mohovich 1999		11	0.69	21	0.01	25	0.05	18	0.32	30	0.17	26	0.23
Moravec 1969		72	0.44	26	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.03	67	0.03
Morozova 2008		19	0.65	54	0.00	23	0.05	15	0.33	26	0.17	22	0.24
Neighaus 1950		6	0.72	24	0.00	8	0.12	4	0.54	26	0.33	7	0.42
Niedzielski 1931		74	0.43	45	0.00	81	0.02	85	0.02	61	0.04	70	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		47	0.56	44	0.00	67	0.03	71	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.03
Osinska 1989		9	0.69	28	0.00	19	0.05	19	0.30	29	0.23	19	0.26
Pachmann 1927		64	0.48	47	0.00	17	0.07	27	0.24	15	0.48	11	0.34
Paderewski 1930		13	0.67	13	0.01	22	0.06	21	0.30	17	0.33	15	0.31
Perlemuter 1992		31	0.61	57	0.00	30	0.06	26	0.25	40	0.11	30	0.17
Pierdomenico 2008		34	0.59	61	0.00	40	0.05	35	0.18	34	0.18	29	0.18
Poblocka 1999		39	0.57	34	0.00	54	0.04	60	0.04	79	0.03	68	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		53	0.54	48	0.00	74	0.04	59	0.04	67	0.03	71	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		69	0.45	14	0.01	33	0.06	39	0.14	45	0.08	38	0.11
Rangell 2001		15	0.66	30	0.00	9	0.09	10	0.42	12	0.34	9	0.38
Richter 1976		61	0.49	51	0.00	58	0.03	66	0.03	54	0.04	73	0.03
Rosen 1989		16	0.65	11	0.02	11	0.07	17	0.32	23	0.38	10	0.35
Rosenthal 1930		63	0.48	78	0.00	72	0.04	57	0.04	54	0.04	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		71	0.44	89	0.00	46	0.05	51	0.05	25	0.34	35	0.13
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.47	90	0.00	26	0.05	34	0.19	20	0.36	21	0.26
Rosenthal 1931c		43	0.57	66	0.00	48	0.10	45	0.10	36	0.18	37	0.13
Rosenthal 1931d		54	0.53	75	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	20	0.34	34	0.14
Rossi 2007		67	0.47	82	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.13	19	0.24	28	0.18
Rubinstein 1939		81	0.31	91	0.00	62	0.03	73	0.03	19	0.38	39	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		27	0.63	37	0.00	32	0.05	38	0.17	19	0.45	17	0.28
Rubinstein 1966		45	0.56	16	0.01	20	0.06	24	0.26	20	0.43	13	0.33
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.49	73	0.00	55	0.03	68	0.03	75	0.03	77	0.03
Shebanova 2002		21	0.64	31	0.00	42	0.07	36	0.18	50	0.06	43	0.10
Smith 1975		23	0.63	67	0.00	24	0.06	23	0.26	54	0.04	40	0.10
Sokolov 2002		51	0.54	56	0.00	69	0.04	55	0.04	82	0.02	69	0.03
Sztompka 1959		60	0.50	39	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	71	0.04	74	0.03
Tomsic 1995		22	0.63	53	0.00	37	0.05	29	0.21	54	0.04	45	0.09
Uninsky 1932		57	0.52	10	0.02	38	0.05	46	0.10	40	0.16	36	0.13
Uninsky 1971		52	0.54	15	0.01	56	0.04	63	0.04	61	0.04	59	0.04
Wasowski 1980		36	0.59	63	0.00	57	0.03	65	0.03	29	0.21	49	0.08
Zak 1937		37	0.58	18	0.01	31	0.07	31	0.20	57	0.05	41	0.10
Zak 1951		46	0.56	35	0.00	29	0.05	30	0.21	51	0.05	42	0.10
Average		2	0.75	8	0.03	7	0.10	7	0.52	62	0.04	33	0.14
Random 1		89	0.03	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	26	0.25	56	0.05
Random 2		91	-0.09	79	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	35	0.16	63	0.04
Random 3		90	0.01	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	70	0.03	91	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).