Falvay 1989

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		17	0.74	12	0.02	22	0.09	21	0.31	26	0.27	27	0.29
Anderszewski 2003		75	0.41	68	0.00	70	0.03	72	0.03	53	0.04	78	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		54	0.58	24	0.00	37	0.06	41	0.12	39	0.13	46	0.12
Bacha 2000		36	0.66	17	0.01	36	0.05	35	0.16	3	0.55	23	0.30
Badura 1965		71	0.49	30	0.00	57	0.04	57	0.04	59	0.04	73	0.04
Barbosa 1983		51	0.59	77	0.00	55	0.04	62	0.04	42	0.19	54	0.09
Biret 1990		44	0.62	14	0.02	32	0.05	31	0.19	20	0.30	33	0.24
Blet 2003		37	0.64	39	0.00	49	0.04	58	0.04	59	0.04	72	0.04
Block 1995		43	0.62	78	0.00	56	0.04	60	0.04	32	0.22	55	0.09
Blumental 1952		80	0.34	40	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.03	83	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		40	0.63	23	0.00	48	0.04	71	0.04	33	0.19	56	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		11	0.76	29	0.00	17	0.08	15	0.38	1	0.56	11	0.46
Bunin 1987		58	0.57	65	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	60	0.04	86	0.03
Bunin 1987b		59	0.57	55	0.00	73	0.05	49	0.05	59	0.04	69	0.04
Chiu 1999		38	0.64	33	0.00	25	0.08	28	0.23	10	0.49	18	0.34
Cohen 1997		74	0.47	20	0.01	60	0.04	63	0.04	5	0.49	42	0.14
Cortot 1951		72	0.48	48	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	65	0.04	87	0.03
Csalog 1996		39	0.63	27	0.00	47	0.05	55	0.05	5	0.54	40	0.16
Czerny 1949		46	0.61	21	0.01	40	0.04	43	0.09	55	0.05	60	0.07
Czerny 1990		25	0.70	80	0.00	31	0.07	37	0.15	56	0.04	59	0.08
Duchoud 2007		65	0.52	52	0.00	71	0.04	56	0.04	71	0.03	81	0.03
Ezaki 2006		18	0.74	22	0.01	28	0.11	20	0.31	25	0.27	25	0.29
Falvay 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Farrell 1958		48	0.61	36	0.00	66	0.06	46	0.06	16	0.27	43	0.13
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.55	38	0.00	77	0.04	67	0.04	44	0.09	62	0.06
Fliere 1977		14	0.75	82	0.00	16	0.12	14	0.39	18	0.32	17	0.35
Fou 1978		5	0.81	18	0.01	6	0.11	4	0.61	3	0.57	5	0.59
Francois 1956		15	0.75	10	0.02	12	0.11	11	0.42	7	0.52	10	0.47
Friedman 1923		90	-0.15	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		89	-0.14	88	0.00	90	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		85	0.13	84	0.00	85	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.03
Garcia 2007		83	0.27	46	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	53	0.04	82	0.03
Garcia 2007b		86	0.08	72	0.00	86	0.04	66	0.04	80	0.03	88	0.03
Gierzod 1998		34	0.66	4	0.09	10	0.10	23	0.30	15	0.32	22	0.31
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.68	59	0.00	39	0.05	34	0.16	37	0.18	39	0.17
Groot 1988		2	0.84	3	0.11	3	0.14	3	0.61	2	0.64	3	0.62
Harasiewicz 1955		49	0.60	35	0.00	27	0.08	27	0.25	27	0.28	28	0.26
Hatto 1993		82	0.28	85	0.00	54	0.03	79	0.03	46	0.05	74	0.04
Hatto 1997		77	0.37	31	0.00	38	0.06	42	0.11	41	0.10	50	0.10
Horowitz 1949		32	0.67	19	0.01	9	0.11	16	0.35	6	0.48	16	0.41
Indjic 1988		81	0.32	45	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.07	43	0.09	58	0.08
Kapell 1951		50	0.59	34	0.00	67	0.05	50	0.05	48	0.05	65	0.05
Kissin 1993		1	0.84	1	0.17	1	0.17	7	0.54	5	0.57	6	0.55
Kushner 1989		22	0.71	42	0.00	42	0.05	38	0.14	35	0.22	37	0.18
Luisada 1991		41	0.62	60	0.00	33	0.06	30	0.19	25	0.30	31	0.24
Lushtak 2004		30	0.68	61	0.00	29	0.07	26	0.26	25	0.25	29	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		16	0.74	53	0.00	24	0.10	19	0.31	21	0.30	24	0.30
Magaloff 1978		13	0.75	11	0.02	11	0.11	9	0.47	4	0.48	9	0.47
Magin 1975		62	0.53	47	0.00	51	0.03	75	0.03	46	0.07	64	0.05
Michalowski 1933		84	0.14	41	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.03
Milkina 1970		8	0.79	5	0.06	5	0.15	1	0.67	1	0.66	1	0.66
Mohovich 1999		7	0.81	74	0.00	13	0.11	12	0.42	11	0.46	13	0.44
Moravec 1969		27	0.69	50	0.00	41	0.04	39	0.13	11	0.46	30	0.24
Morozova 2008		42	0.62	28	0.00	35	0.06	33	0.16	20	0.20	38	0.18
Neighaus 1950		21	0.71	57	0.00	23	0.07	18	0.33	24	0.33	21	0.33
Niedzielski 1931		73	0.48	32	0.00	59	0.04	70	0.04	12	0.36	45	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		45	0.61	69	0.00	34	0.06	32	0.17	18	0.32	34	0.23
Osinska 1989		23	0.71	70	0.00	30	0.06	36	0.15	27	0.25	35	0.19
Pachmann 1927		33	0.66	62	0.00	26	0.08	29	0.21	8	0.52	20	0.33
Paderewski 1930		60	0.55	89	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	81	0.02	76	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		19	0.73	56	0.00	21	0.06	24	0.28	23	0.31	26	0.29
Pierdomenico 2008		24	0.70	25	0.00	15	0.08	13	0.39	1	0.55	12	0.46
Poblocka 1999		29	0.68	15	0.02	43	0.05	40	0.13	28	0.25	36	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.51	51	0.00	74	0.04	68	0.04	57	0.04	68	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		69	0.50	71	0.00	58	0.04	64	0.04	42	0.10	61	0.06
Rangell 2001		55	0.58	66	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	38	0.16	57	0.09
Richter 1976		20	0.72	7	0.04	18	0.07	25	0.27	9	0.40	19	0.33
Rosen 1989		31	0.67	49	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.07	33	0.26	44	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		64	0.52	43	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	43	0.10	67	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		63	0.53	63	0.00	61	0.03	73	0.03	28	0.32	49	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		67	0.51	75	0.00	62	0.05	48	0.05	29	0.22	52	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		53	0.59	76	0.00	63	0.05	52	0.05	27	0.24	48	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		52	0.59	81	0.00	53	0.03	74	0.03	17	0.35	51	0.10
Rossi 2007		79	0.35	83	0.00	76	0.03	86	0.03	54	0.03	75	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		78	0.36	37	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	22	0.37	47	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		9	0.79	13	0.02	14	0.15	10	0.43	3	0.63	8	0.52
Rubinstein 1966		35	0.66	54	0.00	46	0.05	47	0.05	21	0.43	41	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		57	0.57	64	0.00	65	0.05	51	0.05	56	0.05	66	0.05
Shebanova 2002		12	0.75	67	0.00	20	0.07	17	0.34	7	0.51	15	0.42
Smith 1975		26	0.70	8	0.03	19	0.07	22	0.31	34	0.19	32	0.24
Sokolov 2002		47	0.61	73	0.00	64	0.05	53	0.05	48	0.06	63	0.05
Sztompka 1959		68	0.50	90	0.00	78	0.04	61	0.04	56	0.05	70	0.04
Tomsic 1995		3	0.83	16	0.01	7	0.18	8	0.49	5	0.55	7	0.52
Uninsky 1932		76	0.39	79	0.00	83	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.03	80	0.03
Uninsky 1971		70	0.49	44	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	54	0.05	71	0.04
Wasowski 1980		56	0.58	26	0.00	50	0.04	59	0.04	25	0.22	53	0.09
Zak 1937		10	0.79	9	0.03	4	0.14	5	0.60	3	0.60	4	0.60
Zak 1951		6	0.81	2	0.12	2	0.16	2	0.63	2	0.62	2	0.62
Average		4	0.82	6	0.05	8	0.13	6	0.56	20	0.32	14	0.42
Random 1		88	-0.11	86	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	62	0.04	84	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.19	58	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	84	0.02	89	0.02
Random 3		87	-0.02	91	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.03

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).