Richter 1976

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		31	0.57	88	0.00	63	0.04	61	0.04	80	0.03	74	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		34	0.53	23	0.01	5	0.10	15	0.34	25	0.29	12	0.31
Ashkenazy 1981		43	0.52	24	0.01	45	0.04	44	0.07	79	0.03	52	0.05
Bacha 2000		73	0.41	89	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	75	0.03	62	0.03
Badura 1965		66	0.44	10	0.02	14	0.06	36	0.11	39	0.16	30	0.13
Barbosa 1983		61	0.46	45	0.00	70	0.05	47	0.05	56	0.04	59	0.04
Biret 1990		63	0.45	62	0.00	72	0.04	59	0.04	66	0.03	80	0.03
Blet 2003		19	0.62	43	0.00	49	0.06	46	0.06	48	0.05	51	0.05
Block 1995		15	0.63	21	0.01	33	0.05	28	0.17	27	0.25	24	0.21
Blumental 1952		84	0.11	66	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		54	0.49	38	0.00	65	0.04	54	0.04	66	0.03	77	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		11	0.64	49	0.00	23	0.07	11	0.39	24	0.33	9	0.36
Bunin 1987		21	0.62	71	0.00	20	0.13	8	0.42	24	0.35	7	0.38
Bunin 1987b		22	0.61	76	0.00	19	0.07	7	0.42	24	0.35	5	0.38
Chiu 1999		75	0.38	28	0.00	66	0.03	75	0.03	69	0.04	65	0.03
Cohen 1997		70	0.42	52	0.00	25	0.07	33	0.14	22	0.32	25	0.21
Cortot 1951		57	0.48	87	0.00	73	0.03	70	0.03	55	0.05	61	0.04
Csalog 1996		51	0.50	11	0.02	30	0.07	29	0.16	13	0.47	17	0.27
Czerny 1949		67	0.43	73	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	67	0.03	73	0.03
Czerny 1990		23	0.61	32	0.00	37	0.04	37	0.11	70	0.04	43	0.07
Duchoud 2007		45	0.51	57	0.00	60	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03	76	0.03
Ezaki 2006		26	0.60	72	0.00	47	0.04	62	0.04	61	0.04	54	0.04
Falvay 1989		1	0.72	6	0.04	8	0.09	9	0.40	25	0.27	10	0.33
Farrell 1958		72	0.42	77	0.00	81	0.04	63	0.04	82	0.03	67	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		27	0.59	15	0.01	9	0.08	25	0.21	13	0.41	14	0.29
Fliere 1977		12	0.64	42	0.00	28	0.07	23	0.23	51	0.05	32	0.11
Fou 1978		29	0.58	35	0.00	39	0.04	30	0.15	43	0.13	29	0.14
Francois 1956		50	0.51	55	0.00	62	0.03	82	0.03	59	0.04	83	0.03
Friedman 1923		90	-0.15	48	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		89	-0.15	67	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.03	89	0.02
Friedman 1930		85	0.10	29	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03	71	0.03
Garcia 2007		76	0.38	30	0.00	59	0.04	60	0.04	27	0.26	36	0.10
Garcia 2007b		86	0.00	44	0.00	85	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.02	90	0.02
Gierzod 1998		69	0.43	74	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		39	0.53	36	0.00	61	0.03	71	0.03	74	0.03	78	0.03
Groot 1988		4	0.70	64	0.00	16	0.07	16	0.33	31	0.21	19	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		18	0.62	1	0.20	1	0.20	2	0.50	13	0.40	2	0.45
Hatto 1993		81	0.28	22	0.01	57	0.03	74	0.03	55	0.03	82	0.03
Hatto 1997		79	0.32	58	0.00	55	0.04	57	0.04	62	0.03	72	0.03
Horowitz 1949		35	0.53	18	0.01	22	0.08	27	0.18	25	0.28	22	0.22
Indjic 1988		80	0.30	54	0.00	58	0.03	69	0.03	51	0.04	68	0.03
Kapell 1951		20	0.62	2	0.17	2	0.17	14	0.36	35	0.26	11	0.31
Kissin 1993		8	0.66	9	0.03	13	0.08	19	0.26	31	0.24	20	0.25
Kushner 1989		13	0.64	8	0.03	29	0.06	24	0.23	46	0.06	31	0.12
Luisada 1991		60	0.47	81	0.00	74	0.03	72	0.03	79	0.03	64	0.03
Lushtak 2004		17	0.62	51	0.00	12	0.08	5	0.48	41	0.13	21	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.63	47	0.00	32	0.05	26	0.20	49	0.05	35	0.10
Magaloff 1978		7	0.67	39	0.00	17	0.13	17	0.32	29	0.27	13	0.29
Magin 1975		32	0.56	7	0.03	27	0.08	20	0.26	13	0.29	16	0.27
Michalowski 1933		83	0.21	33	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	59	0.05	58	0.04
Milkina 1970		24	0.61	82	0.00	42	0.04	32	0.14	46	0.06	39	0.09
Mohovich 1999		9	0.66	53	0.00	18	0.08	18	0.30	34	0.13	26	0.20
Moravec 1969		52	0.50	19	0.01	77	0.04	53	0.04	72	0.03	63	0.03
Morozova 2008		44	0.52	60	0.00	50	0.03	73	0.03	67	0.04	70	0.03
Neighaus 1950		65	0.44	65	0.00	68	0.04	56	0.04	88	0.02	81	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		68	0.43	70	0.00	56	0.03	67	0.03	16	0.31	34	0.10
Ohlsson 1999		64	0.45	13	0.02	69	0.05	49	0.05	70	0.03	57	0.04
Osinska 1989		41	0.52	14	0.01	38	0.04	45	0.07	71	0.04	48	0.05
Pachmann 1927		49	0.51	25	0.01	35	0.05	35	0.12	26	0.31	27	0.19
Paderewski 1930		46	0.51	31	0.00	31	0.06	34	0.13	73	0.02	50	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		5	0.70	4	0.10	4	0.15	3	0.48	17	0.40	3	0.44
Pierdomenico 2008		33	0.55	78	0.00	43	0.04	42	0.08	42	0.10	37	0.09
Poblocka 1999		10	0.64	41	0.00	11	0.07	13	0.36	34	0.21	15	0.27
Rabcewiczowa 1932		78	0.35	37	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	78	0.03	84	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		56	0.49	90	0.00	34	0.05	39	0.10	73	0.03	49	0.05
Rangell 2001		55	0.49	69	0.00	64	0.04	58	0.04	67	0.03	79	0.03
Richter 1976		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosen 1989		71	0.42	34	0.00	84	0.03	68	0.03	87	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		37	0.53	63	0.00	36	0.04	38	0.11	34	0.22	28	0.16
Rosenthal 1931		36	0.53	40	0.00	26	0.08	21	0.24	31	0.28	18	0.26
Rosenthal 1931b		59	0.47	75	0.00	53	0.04	55	0.04	34	0.17	41	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		38	0.53	61	0.00	52	0.03	66	0.03	44	0.10	53	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		47	0.51	79	0.00	54	0.05	48	0.05	30	0.18	40	0.09
Rossi 2007		77	0.37	84	0.00	51	0.03	65	0.03	27	0.17	42	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		82	0.22	5	0.04	10	0.10	31	0.15	52	0.05	38	0.09
Rubinstein 1952		42	0.52	56	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.07	58	0.05	47	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		62	0.45	68	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	71	0.03	69	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		25	0.61	17	0.01	6	0.12	4	0.48	26	0.28	8	0.37
Shebanova 2002		53	0.50	16	0.01	41	0.04	40	0.09	66	0.04	45	0.06
Smith 1975		28	0.58	83	0.00	48	0.04	50	0.04	75	0.03	66	0.03
Sokolov 2002		2	0.71	3	0.10	3	0.16	1	0.53	10	0.46	1	0.49
Sztompka 1959		58	0.48	27	0.01	71	0.04	52	0.04	64	0.04	56	0.04
Tomsic 1995		6	0.69	12	0.02	7	0.08	6	0.47	25	0.30	6	0.38
Uninsky 1932		74	0.38	59	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	55	0.05	60	0.04
Uninsky 1971		40	0.53	50	0.00	40	0.04	41	0.08	58	0.05	44	0.06
Wasowski 1980		16	0.63	20	0.01	21	0.07	12	0.39	2	0.43	4	0.41
Zak 1937		48	0.51	85	0.00	46	0.04	51	0.04	56	0.05	55	0.04
Zak 1951		30	0.57	46	0.00	24	0.08	22	0.24	39	0.18	23	0.21
Average		3	0.70	26	0.01	15	0.06	10	0.40	75	0.03	33	0.11
Random 1		88	-0.09	91	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	30	0.21	46	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.17	86	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02
Random 3		87	-0.07	80	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	74	0.03	88	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).