Horowitz 1949

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		60	0.47	77	0.00	51	0.05	54	0.05	48	0.05	54	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		72	0.40	45	0.00	60	0.04	57	0.04	85	0.02	74	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		35	0.55	19	0.01	41	0.05	37	0.13	69	0.03	52	0.06
Bacha 2000		56	0.49	62	0.00	61	0.05	51	0.05	39	0.14	43	0.08
Badura 1965		69	0.42	90	0.00	68	0.03	72	0.03	68	0.04	79	0.03
Barbosa 1983		74	0.39	75	0.00	69	0.03	78	0.03	59	0.04	73	0.03
Biret 1990		42	0.53	73	0.00	53	0.04	59	0.04	85	0.02	83	0.03
Blet 2003		65	0.45	59	0.00	71	0.03	68	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.03
Block 1995		63	0.45	24	0.01	50	0.05	52	0.05	39	0.14	45	0.08
Blumental 1952		73	0.40	10	0.02	58	0.05	53	0.05	35	0.12	46	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		17	0.62	15	0.01	21	0.07	29	0.26	22	0.29	21	0.27
Brailowsky 1960		13	0.65	11	0.02	10	0.08	12	0.38	9	0.45	5	0.41
Bunin 1987		28	0.56	49	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	48	0.05	50	0.07
Bunin 1987b		27	0.56	47	0.00	43	0.04	41	0.11	47	0.05	49	0.07
Chiu 1999		38	0.54	8	0.03	11	0.07	19	0.32	22	0.35	13	0.33
Cohen 1997		84	0.21	83	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	55	0.04	81	0.03
Cortot 1951		70	0.41	35	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.03	84	0.03
Csalog 1996		61	0.46	76	0.00	73	0.04	62	0.04	40	0.19	41	0.09
Czerny 1949		43	0.53	32	0.00	36	0.07	39	0.13	57	0.05	44	0.08
Czerny 1990		16	0.62	9	0.03	12	0.06	16	0.35	51	0.05	35	0.13
Duchoud 2007		68	0.42	88	0.00	75	0.04	61	0.04	79	0.02	78	0.03
Ezaki 2006		39	0.54	68	0.00	34	0.06	35	0.17	78	0.03	47	0.07
Falvay 1989		7	0.67	14	0.01	5	0.13	6	0.48	16	0.35	6	0.41
Farrell 1958		19	0.61	42	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.14	12	0.29	28	0.20
Ferenczy 1958		81	0.31	50	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.02	89	0.02
Fliere 1977		9	0.66	63	0.00	15	0.07	9	0.42	47	0.06	30	0.16
Fou 1978		33	0.55	46	0.00	22	0.06	18	0.33	35	0.30	18	0.31
Francois 1956		29	0.56	18	0.01	29	0.06	27	0.27	32	0.19	24	0.23
Friedman 1923		88	0.01	66	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	64	0.05	86	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.03	64	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	52	0.06	82	0.03
Friedman 1930		82	0.24	52	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	49	0.05	60	0.04
Garcia 2007		80	0.31	84	0.00	74	0.04	67	0.04	34	0.21	42	0.09
Garcia 2007b		85	0.15	80	0.00	85	0.03	69	0.03	62	0.03	85	0.03
Gierzod 1998		23	0.58	91	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	71	0.03	62	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.55	57	0.00	52	0.06	46	0.06	48	0.05	56	0.05
Groot 1988		5	0.71	13	0.01	4	0.17	5	0.51	15	0.40	4	0.45
Harasiewicz 1955		47	0.52	34	0.00	17	0.06	14	0.35	38	0.15	23	0.23
Hatto 1993		77	0.35	5	0.04	42	0.05	44	0.09	56	0.03	57	0.05
Hatto 1997		75	0.38	81	0.00	57	0.04	58	0.04	64	0.03	76	0.03
Horowitz 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Indjic 1988		76	0.36	78	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	49	0.05	51	0.06
Kapell 1951		57	0.49	21	0.01	63	0.04	64	0.04	61	0.04	59	0.04
Kissin 1993		22	0.58	17	0.01	26	0.07	13	0.36	35	0.23	19	0.29
Kushner 1989		20	0.58	58	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.11	49	0.05	48	0.07
Luisada 1991		54	0.50	26	0.01	59	0.04	63	0.04	72	0.03	64	0.03
Lushtak 2004		55	0.49	70	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	60	0.04	55	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.71	6	0.03	8	0.13	4	0.53	23	0.30	7	0.40
Magaloff 1978		6	0.69	7	0.03	6	0.13	8	0.45	24	0.33	8	0.39
Magin 1975		37	0.54	29	0.00	27	0.06	34	0.18	38	0.14	31	0.16
Michalowski 1933		83	0.21	61	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.03	71	0.03
Milkina 1970		11	0.65	72	0.00	18	0.09	15	0.35	23	0.30	16	0.32
Mohovich 1999		10	0.66	74	0.00	9	0.09	11	0.40	27	0.25	17	0.32
Moravec 1969		14	0.64	4	0.05	13	0.06	23	0.31	14	0.45	9	0.37
Morozova 2008		40	0.53	33	0.00	31	0.06	26	0.28	50	0.05	36	0.12
Neighaus 1950		8	0.67	39	0.00	16	0.09	10	0.42	39	0.17	22	0.27
Niedzielski 1931		31	0.56	51	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.21	2	0.53	14	0.33
Ohlsson 1999		48	0.52	28	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	80	0.03	70	0.03
Osinska 1989		49	0.52	36	0.00	64	0.03	73	0.03	58	0.04	65	0.03
Pachmann 1927		58	0.48	54	0.00	46	0.04	60	0.04	32	0.24	38	0.10
Paderewski 1930		67	0.43	37	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.02	88	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		50	0.52	30	0.00	30	0.05	30	0.21	55	0.04	39	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		30	0.56	25	0.01	14	0.06	17	0.34	18	0.31	15	0.32
Poblocka 1999		59	0.47	85	0.00	72	0.03	70	0.03	81	0.03	66	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		71	0.40	86	0.00	82	0.03	71	0.03	79	0.03	68	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		15	0.63	2	0.10	3	0.19	1	0.61	2	0.57	1	0.59
Rangell 2001		45	0.52	22	0.01	49	0.05	49	0.05	59	0.04	63	0.04
Richter 1976		41	0.53	16	0.01	28	0.07	25	0.28	27	0.18	25	0.22
Rosen 1989		53	0.50	69	0.00	65	0.03	85	0.03	68	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		32	0.56	38	0.00	38	0.07	33	0.18	31	0.25	27	0.21
Rosenthal 1931		51	0.50	55	0.00	33	0.09	32	0.21	20	0.37	20	0.28
Rosenthal 1931b		36	0.55	41	0.00	23	0.06	21	0.31	12	0.42	11	0.36
Rosenthal 1931c		26	0.56	43	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.13	35	0.18	32	0.15
Rosenthal 1931d		21	0.58	44	0.00	24	0.09	20	0.32	10	0.41	10	0.36
Rossi 2007		86	0.11	89	0.00	86	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.02	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		79	0.34	53	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	30	0.30	40	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		25	0.57	48	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	25	0.34	33	0.14
Rubinstein 1966		52	0.50	56	0.00	35	0.06	40	0.11	41	0.15	34	0.13
Schilhawsky 1960		18	0.62	12	0.02	19	0.07	22	0.31	39	0.16	26	0.22
Shebanova 2002		46	0.52	23	0.01	55	0.04	56	0.04	58	0.05	61	0.04
Smith 1975		62	0.46	67	0.00	67	0.03	75	0.03	64	0.04	67	0.03
Sokolov 2002		44	0.52	71	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	65	0.04	58	0.04
Sztompka 1959		78	0.34	40	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.03	69	0.03
Tomsic 1995		24	0.57	79	0.00	25	0.06	28	0.26	38	0.13	29	0.18
Uninsky 1932		64	0.45	31	0.00	66	0.03	74	0.03	67	0.04	77	0.03
Uninsky 1971		66	0.44	82	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.03	72	0.03
Wasowski 1980		12	0.65	20	0.01	20	0.06	24	0.29	4	0.41	12	0.34
Zak 1937		1	0.76	3	0.09	2	0.36	3	0.55	5	0.51	2	0.53
Zak 1951		2	0.75	1	0.32	1	0.32	2	0.56	8	0.50	3	0.53
Average		3	0.72	27	0.00	7	0.13	7	0.47	73	0.03	37	0.12
Random 1		91	-0.11	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	53	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.03	65	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	40	0.13	53	0.05
Random 3		90	-0.05	60	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.02	91	0.01

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).