Hatto 1993

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		81	0.20	62	0.00	47	0.04	47	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		4	0.69	63	0.00	3	0.31	5	0.55	4	0.56	4	0.55
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.69	7	0.00	4	0.28	3	0.67	3	0.56	3	0.61
Bacha 2000		22	0.44	34	0.00	45	0.03	45	0.07	28	0.30	29	0.14
Badura 1965		80	0.20	47	0.00	55	0.04	49	0.04	46	0.06	56	0.05
Barbosa 1983		60	0.29	48	0.00	26	0.07	27	0.22	41	0.22	20	0.22
Biret 1990		10	0.51	35	0.00	9	0.09	9	0.45	28	0.24	10	0.33
Blet 2003		19	0.45	15	0.00	25	0.08	18	0.35	37	0.15	18	0.23
Block 1995		89	0.04	49	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.02
Blumental 1952		24	0.42	50	0.00	35	0.05	33	0.17	29	0.17	28	0.17
Boshniakovich 1969		76	0.22	28	0.00	84	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03	77	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		33	0.36	64	0.00	49	0.04	50	0.04	35	0.16	40	0.08
Bunin 1987		15	0.46	18	0.00	24	0.07	24	0.28	50	0.05	34	0.12
Bunin 1987b		14	0.47	36	0.00	19	0.07	23	0.29	48	0.05	33	0.12
Chiu 1999		36	0.36	37	0.00	31	0.06	25	0.23	33	0.21	19	0.22
Cohen 1997		54	0.31	38	0.00	71	0.02	78	0.02	33	0.23	46	0.07
Cortot 1951		53	0.31	65	0.00	57	0.03	60	0.03	58	0.05	64	0.04
Csalog 1996		73	0.24	27	0.00	46	0.04	48	0.04	33	0.27	36	0.10
Czerny 1949		83	0.19	39	0.00	69	0.02	75	0.02	75	0.03	88	0.02
Czerny 1990		55	0.30	19	0.00	38	0.04	37	0.14	75	0.03	52	0.06
Duchoud 2007		6	0.61	66	0.00	5	0.24	7	0.52	19	0.42	6	0.47
Ezaki 2006		26	0.41	20	0.00	23	0.07	19	0.33	40	0.11	26	0.19
Falvay 1989		64	0.28	11	0.00	50	0.05	46	0.05	79	0.03	59	0.04
Farrell 1958		27	0.41	67	0.00	56	0.03	58	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		37	0.35	51	0.00	28	0.06	34	0.16	38	0.18	27	0.17
Fliere 1977		23	0.44	24	0.00	32	0.05	26	0.22	69	0.04	38	0.09
Fou 1978		43	0.35	68	0.00	67	0.03	65	0.03	61	0.05	60	0.04
Francois 1956		87	0.14	52	0.00	77	0.03	63	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1923		70	0.27	53	0.00	89	0.02	79	0.02	76	0.04	85	0.03
Friedman 1923b		69	0.27	29	0.00	88	0.02	80	0.02	75	0.04	79	0.03
Friedman 1930		62	0.29	4	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.09	45	0.08	42	0.08
Garcia 2007		50	0.32	69	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.09	62	0.04	51	0.06
Garcia 2007b		56	0.30	70	0.00	36	0.04	31	0.18	14	0.25	24	0.21
Gierzod 1998		13	0.48	30	0.00	14	0.08	15	0.36	39	0.16	17	0.24
Gornostaeva 1994		79	0.21	21	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	77	0.03	90	0.02
Groot 1988		75	0.22	40	0.00	76	0.03	54	0.03	62	0.04	81	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		72	0.24	12	0.00	40	0.06	32	0.17	72	0.03	47	0.07
Hatto 1993		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1997		2	0.97	2	0.00	2	0.84	2	0.91	2	0.89	2	0.90
Horowitz 1949		41	0.35	71	0.00	48	0.03	56	0.03	44	0.09	54	0.05
Indjic 1988		1	0.99	1	0.98	1	0.97	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Kapell 1951		20	0.45	8	0.00	22	0.07	11	0.42	37	0.22	12	0.30
Kissin 1993		74	0.24	22	0.00	63	0.03	67	0.03	46	0.08	55	0.05
Kushner 1989		34	0.36	31	0.00	34	0.05	39	0.13	77	0.03	49	0.06
Luisada 1991		7	0.58	54	0.00	7	0.22	8	0.46	7	0.44	7	0.45
Lushtak 2004		12	0.49	41	0.00	16	0.07	16	0.36	39	0.14	22	0.22
Malcuzynski 1961		38	0.35	55	0.00	62	0.03	61	0.03	64	0.04	69	0.03
Magaloff 1978		47	0.33	72	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	66	0.03	53	0.05
Magin 1975		8	0.55	5	0.00	8	0.21	14	0.36	10	0.36	8	0.36
Michalowski 1933		45	0.34	42	0.00	17	0.08	13	0.37	29	0.31	9	0.34
Milkina 1970		35	0.36	56	0.00	65	0.03	57	0.03	64	0.04	68	0.03
Mohovich 1999		59	0.29	23	0.00	61	0.03	68	0.03	78	0.03	78	0.03
Moravec 1969		67	0.28	73	0.00	37	0.04	42	0.09	29	0.21	30	0.14
Morozova 2008		21	0.45	3	0.00	12	0.14	22	0.30	37	0.13	25	0.20
Neighaus 1950		25	0.41	74	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.09	78	0.03	57	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.19	75	0.00	58	0.03	66	0.03	34	0.17	45	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		5	0.63	32	0.00	6	0.28	6	0.52	13	0.46	5	0.49
Osinska 1989		84	0.19	76	0.00	68	0.02	89	0.02	82	0.03	87	0.02
Pachmann 1927		77	0.22	57	0.00	73	0.03	74	0.03	43	0.11	50	0.06
Paderewski 1930		68	0.27	43	0.00	79	0.02	77	0.02	53	0.04	72	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		85	0.17	9	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	85	0.03	86	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.25	77	0.00	54	0.03	62	0.03	58	0.04	65	0.03
Poblocka 1999		16	0.46	78	0.00	13	0.09	10	0.42	32	0.24	11	0.32
Rabcewiczowa 1932		78	0.21	79	0.00	80	0.03	70	0.03	74	0.03	66	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		52	0.31	80	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.14	81	0.03	48	0.06
Rangell 2001		48	0.33	81	0.00	64	0.03	73	0.03	30	0.21	44	0.08
Richter 1976		66	0.28	33	0.00	59	0.03	55	0.03	74	0.03	71	0.03
Rosen 1989		51	0.32	82	0.00	70	0.02	82	0.02	47	0.04	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		32	0.37	44	0.00	53	0.04	53	0.04	80	0.03	75	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		46	0.33	83	0.00	75	0.03	69	0.03	61	0.04	74	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		42	0.35	84	0.00	74	0.03	71	0.03	62	0.04	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		49	0.32	85	0.00	82	0.03	64	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		65	0.28	86	0.00	72	0.02	76	0.02	51	0.05	80	0.03
Rossi 2007		91	-0.18	87	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		17	0.46	16	0.00	33	0.05	30	0.18	14	0.43	13	0.28
Rubinstein 1952		86	0.17	88	0.00	66	0.02	86	0.02	38	0.14	58	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		18	0.46	25	0.00	52	0.04	51	0.04	39	0.16	41	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.40	58	0.00	21	0.06	12	0.37	38	0.19	14	0.27
Shebanova 2002		29	0.39	14	0.00	29	0.06	36	0.15	25	0.32	21	0.22
Smith 1975		30	0.38	59	0.00	18	0.09	17	0.35	66	0.04	32	0.12
Sokolov 2002		11	0.50	45	0.00	11	0.10	20	0.32	39	0.21	15	0.26
Sztompka 1959		57	0.30	89	0.00	78	0.02	87	0.02	60	0.05	73	0.03
Tomsic 1995		39	0.35	60	0.00	60	0.04	52	0.04	69	0.03	70	0.03
Uninsky 1932		61	0.29	17	0.00	51	0.03	59	0.03	57	0.05	61	0.04
Uninsky 1971		31	0.38	10	0.00	30	0.08	21	0.32	42	0.18	16	0.24
Wasowski 1980		40	0.35	46	0.00	27	0.07	29	0.21	46	0.07	31	0.12
Zak 1937		44	0.34	61	0.00	20	0.07	35	0.15	46	0.07	35	0.10
Zak 1951		58	0.30	13	0.00	15	0.10	28	0.21	65	0.04	39	0.09
Average		9	0.51	6	0.00	10	0.13	4	0.56	45	0.08	23	0.21
Random 1		90	0.00	26	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	32	0.19	63	0.04
Random 2		88	0.06	90	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	4	0.49	37	0.10
Random 3		63	0.29	91	0.00	87	0.02	81	0.02	19	0.31	43	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).