Niedzielski 1931

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		27	0.49	89	0.00	76	0.02	74	0.02	69	0.03	85	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		42	0.44	45	0.00	9	0.09	17	0.28	51	0.04	20	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		59	0.37	37	0.00	15	0.06	20	0.27	73	0.03	27	0.09
Bacha 2000		33	0.47	73	0.00	31	0.06	31	0.18	66	0.04	29	0.08
Badura 1965		73	0.26	64	0.00	82	0.02	83	0.02	82	0.02	86	0.02
Barbosa 1983		67	0.34	26	0.01	81	0.02	85	0.02	67	0.04	67	0.03
Biret 1990		10	0.56	20	0.01	34	0.04	29	0.21	69	0.03	35	0.08
Blet 2003		49	0.42	34	0.01	75	0.03	67	0.03	82	0.03	68	0.03
Block 1995		40	0.45	6	0.04	21	0.08	22	0.26	56	0.04	24	0.10
Blumental 1952		80	0.21	5	0.04	12	0.07	38	0.16	57	0.04	34	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		45	0.43	23	0.01	49	0.04	61	0.04	85	0.02	72	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		41	0.45	36	0.01	32	0.04	21	0.26	55	0.05	18	0.11
Bunin 1987		63	0.37	50	0.00	72	0.02	71	0.02	71	0.03	89	0.02
Bunin 1987b		61	0.37	71	0.00	73	0.03	63	0.03	71	0.03	61	0.03
Chiu 1999		70	0.27	43	0.00	53	0.04	55	0.04	63	0.04	48	0.04
Cohen 1997		85	0.09	66	0.00	69	0.02	75	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02
Cortot 1951		35	0.47	7	0.03	16	0.06	18	0.27	51	0.06	13	0.13
Csalog 1996		20	0.53	84	0.00	25	0.08	35	0.17	38	0.22	6	0.19
Czerny 1949		23	0.52	28	0.01	50	0.04	57	0.04	58	0.05	51	0.04
Czerny 1990		9	0.57	16	0.01	29	0.06	28	0.22	46	0.05	25	0.10
Duchoud 2007		15	0.55	57	0.00	30	0.05	26	0.23	70	0.03	33	0.08
Ezaki 2006		51	0.41	90	0.00	63	0.04	58	0.04	87	0.02	59	0.03
Falvay 1989		32	0.48	22	0.01	13	0.06	12	0.36	70	0.04	14	0.12
Farrell 1958		3	0.60	48	0.00	22	0.07	13	0.36	58	0.04	15	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		55	0.40	39	0.00	67	0.02	78	0.02	74	0.03	84	0.02
Fliere 1977		13	0.55	85	0.00	52	0.04	53	0.04	86	0.03	60	0.03
Fou 1978		81	0.20	54	0.00	79	0.02	72	0.02	80	0.03	79	0.02
Francois 1956		2	0.61	8	0.02	11	0.07	27	0.22	58	0.04	28	0.09
Friedman 1923		89	0.00	44	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	63	0.05	76	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.03	10	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.02	58	0.05	73	0.03
Friedman 1930		84	0.13	32	0.01	78	0.02	80	0.02	61	0.05	69	0.03
Garcia 2007		66	0.34	3	0.06	5	0.09	14	0.35	12	0.40	3	0.37
Garcia 2007b		88	0.02	77	0.00	35	0.05	42	0.10	63	0.03	47	0.05
Gierzod 1998		8	0.58	15	0.01	10	0.08	11	0.37	57	0.04	17	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		22	0.53	86	0.00	80	0.02	77	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.02
Groot 1988		12	0.55	87	0.00	51	0.03	65	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		79	0.21	56	0.00	33	0.05	30	0.19	82	0.03	36	0.08
Hatto 1993		82	0.19	38	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.17	66	0.03	41	0.07
Hatto 1997		77	0.23	17	0.01	43	0.04	41	0.12	70	0.03	44	0.06
Horowitz 1949		11	0.56	9	0.02	4	0.10	2	0.53	31	0.21	4	0.33
Indjic 1988		78	0.22	12	0.02	38	0.05	32	0.17	59	0.03	39	0.07
Kapell 1951		4	0.60	24	0.01	23	0.08	10	0.39	56	0.04	16	0.12
Kissin 1993		62	0.37	74	0.00	56	0.04	54	0.04	75	0.03	65	0.03
Kushner 1989		24	0.51	58	0.00	40	0.04	40	0.12	63	0.04	37	0.07
Luisada 1991		54	0.41	35	0.01	20	0.07	25	0.24	60	0.04	21	0.10
Lushtak 2004		71	0.27	72	0.00	46	0.04	51	0.04	88	0.02	71	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.55	40	0.00	47	0.03	62	0.03	83	0.03	62	0.03
Magaloff 1978		21	0.53	61	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.10	76	0.03	46	0.05
Magin 1975		65	0.35	25	0.01	17	0.05	19	0.27	67	0.03	26	0.09
Michalowski 1933		76	0.23	60	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	50	0.06	38	0.07
Milkina 1970		19	0.54	70	0.00	36	0.05	36	0.16	63	0.04	31	0.08
Mohovich 1999		25	0.51	53	0.00	57	0.05	48	0.05	80	0.03	53	0.04
Moravec 1969		1	0.69	1	0.30	1	0.30	1	0.61	8	0.51	1	0.56
Morozova 2008		72	0.26	49	0.00	39	0.05	33	0.17	87	0.02	43	0.06
Neighaus 1950		34	0.47	21	0.01	54	0.05	50	0.05	61	0.04	55	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ohlsson 1999		5	0.59	42	0.00	24	0.08	9	0.39	65	0.03	19	0.11
Osinska 1989		29	0.49	78	0.00	70	0.03	66	0.03	84	0.02	77	0.02
Pachmann 1927		74	0.25	29	0.01	84	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.03	81	0.02
Paderewski 1930		44	0.43	18	0.01	77	0.02	81	0.02	72	0.02	80	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.36	62	0.00	26	0.07	24	0.24	86	0.03	30	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		48	0.42	63	0.00	28	0.06	37	0.16	44	0.10	11	0.13
Poblocka 1999		18	0.54	67	0.00	27	0.07	15	0.33	48	0.05	10	0.13
Rabcewiczowa 1932		52	0.41	80	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.02	78	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		30	0.49	4	0.04	3	0.10	8	0.41	39	0.11	5	0.21
Rangell 2001		28	0.49	83	0.00	64	0.04	60	0.04	75	0.03	74	0.03
Richter 1976		46	0.43	55	0.00	18	0.06	16	0.31	67	0.03	23	0.10
Rosen 1989		60	0.37	47	0.00	86	0.02	79	0.02	89	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		36	0.46	65	0.00	65	0.04	52	0.04	69	0.03	70	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		69	0.32	88	0.00	68	0.02	76	0.02	74	0.03	82	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		68	0.33	81	0.00	60	0.05	47	0.05	65	0.04	56	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		37	0.46	76	0.00	59	0.05	49	0.05	80	0.03	57	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		43	0.43	79	0.00	55	0.04	59	0.04	47	0.05	54	0.04
Rossi 2007		83	0.13	27	0.01	48	0.03	68	0.03	43	0.08	45	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		75	0.25	33	0.01	44	0.04	44	0.08	69	0.04	42	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		38	0.45	69	0.00	66	0.03	69	0.03	59	0.05	58	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		58	0.38	46	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.03	83	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		16	0.54	2	0.08	2	0.16	4	0.51	48	0.06	7	0.17
Shebanova 2002		39	0.45	41	0.00	42	0.04	39	0.12	56	0.05	32	0.08
Smith 1975		50	0.42	52	0.00	58	0.05	46	0.05	72	0.03	49	0.04
Sokolov 2002		26	0.51	59	0.00	19	0.06	23	0.25	56	0.04	22	0.10
Sztompka 1959		57	0.38	13	0.01	71	0.02	73	0.02	68	0.04	64	0.03
Tomsic 1995		53	0.41	75	0.00	62	0.03	64	0.03	65	0.04	63	0.03
Uninsky 1932		56	0.39	19	0.01	61	0.04	56	0.04	66	0.04	50	0.04
Uninsky 1971		47	0.42	68	0.00	74	0.03	70	0.03	77	0.03	66	0.03
Wasowski 1980		7	0.58	11	0.02	8	0.11	3	0.53	12	0.34	2	0.42
Zak 1937		17	0.54	30	0.01	6	0.08	5	0.50	54	0.05	8	0.16
Zak 1951		31	0.48	91	0.00	7	0.08	6	0.45	57	0.05	9	0.15
Average		6	0.59	14	0.01	14	0.07	7	0.41	59	0.04	12	0.13
Random 1		90	-0.01	82	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	33	0.19	52	0.04
Random 2		86	0.06	31	0.01	89	0.02	84	0.02	22	0.26	40	0.07
Random 3		91	-0.06	51	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	80	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).