Cortot 1951

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		68	0.16	73	0.00	59	0.03	69	0.03	89	0.02	89	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		63	0.19	64	0.00	67	0.05	61	0.05	67	0.04	65	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		71	0.16	74	0.00	77	0.03	73	0.03	78	0.04	80	0.03
Bacha 2000		44	0.24	67	0.00	39	0.08	36	0.27	60	0.05	37	0.12
Badura 1965		53	0.22	32	0.00	49	0.05	52	0.05	60	0.04	71	0.04
Barbosa 1983		73	0.15	59	0.00	71	0.02	81	0.02	73	0.04	77	0.03
Biret 1990		59	0.20	33	0.00	55	0.06	48	0.06	53	0.06	51	0.06
Blet 2003		60	0.20	65	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	62	0.06	49	0.06
Block 1995		10	0.41	4	0.03	7	0.17	11	0.61	33	0.38	21	0.48
Blumental 1952		82	0.11	87	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.19	13	0.01	35	0.09	35	0.30	69	0.04	39	0.11
Brailowsky 1960		19	0.34	53	0.00	22	0.09	19	0.54	18	0.54	13	0.54
Bunin 1987		80	0.12	88	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.03
Bunin 1987b		78	0.12	89	0.00	79	0.03	72	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.03
Chiu 1999		28	0.32	22	0.00	53	0.04	63	0.04	74	0.04	60	0.04
Cohen 1997		8	0.42	14	0.01	9	0.18	12	0.60	9	0.62	10	0.61
Cortot 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Csalog 1996		52	0.22	10	0.01	68	0.04	66	0.04	47	0.07	55	0.05
Czerny 1949		17	0.35	30	0.00	16	0.13	16	0.57	12	0.75	8	0.65
Czerny 1990		90	0.00	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.02	90	0.01
Duchoud 2007		55	0.22	80	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	56	0.06	58	0.05
Ezaki 2006		9	0.42	3	0.04	4	0.19	4	0.72	21	0.61	6	0.66
Falvay 1989		40	0.25	44	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	61	0.04	52	0.05
Farrell 1958		26	0.33	34	0.00	28	0.07	28	0.43	27	0.37	24	0.40
Ferenczy 1958		12	0.39	16	0.01	14	0.16	13	0.59	7	0.82	3	0.70
Fliere 1977		30	0.31	69	0.00	32	0.09	29	0.41	67	0.05	33	0.14
Fou 1978		48	0.23	39	0.00	42	0.06	44	0.12	77	0.03	47	0.06
Francois 1956		23	0.34	28	0.00	15	0.14	18	0.54	20	0.58	12	0.56
Friedman 1923		43	0.24	31	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	59	0.07	59	0.05
Friedman 1923b		51	0.23	60	0.00	62	0.05	60	0.05	57	0.08	50	0.06
Friedman 1930		45	0.24	85	0.00	61	0.05	62	0.05	69	0.04	68	0.04
Garcia 2007		58	0.20	61	0.00	47	0.05	59	0.05	74	0.04	70	0.04
Garcia 2007b		91	-0.01	70	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Gierzod 1998		29	0.32	23	0.00	18	0.09	20	0.53	22	0.51	18	0.52
Gornostaeva 1994		3	0.47	17	0.00	6	0.22	3	0.73	14	0.65	5	0.69
Groot 1988		65	0.17	62	0.00	58	0.03	70	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		16	0.36	15	0.01	33	0.09	27	0.43	71	0.04	36	0.13
Hatto 1993		66	0.17	81	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	77	0.04	72	0.04
Hatto 1997		42	0.24	25	0.00	46	0.06	51	0.06	65	0.04	56	0.05
Horowitz 1949		87	0.07	71	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.02
Indjic 1988		84	0.09	75	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	84	0.03	88	0.02
Kapell 1951		79	0.12	82	0.00	78	0.03	71	0.03	78	0.04	74	0.03
Kissin 1993		81	0.11	37	0.00	72	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.04	76	0.03
Kushner 1989		47	0.23	76	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.05	64	0.04
Luisada 1991		83	0.11	52	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.02
Lushtak 2004		33	0.29	51	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.26	41	0.11	30	0.17
Malcuzynski 1961		56	0.22	11	0.01	26	0.08	32	0.35	59	0.05	35	0.13
Magaloff 1978		15	0.36	24	0.00	13	0.15	10	0.61	29	0.40	20	0.49
Magin 1975		85	0.09	55	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	61	0.05	63	0.04
Michalowski 1933		75	0.14	90	0.00	84	0.02	83	0.02	82	0.03	87	0.02
Milkina 1970		64	0.17	41	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	50	0.07	48	0.06
Mohovich 1999		25	0.33	9	0.01	21	0.09	22	0.52	41	0.18	25	0.31
Moravec 1969		46	0.24	29	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.20	77	0.04	41	0.09
Morozova 2008		41	0.25	57	0.00	64	0.06	47	0.06	83	0.03	67	0.04
Neighaus 1950		7	0.43	5	0.03	3	0.23	8	0.66	16	0.44	14	0.54
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.13	56	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	73	0.04	62	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		14	0.37	12	0.01	20	0.09	23	0.52	49	0.06	28	0.18
Osinska 1989		5	0.45	7	0.02	8	0.16	7	0.68	16	0.59	9	0.63
Pachmann 1927		20	0.34	40	0.00	36	0.10	34	0.34	62	0.06	34	0.14
Paderewski 1930		38	0.27	49	0.00	30	0.09	30	0.39	45	0.21	26	0.29
Perlemuter 1992		61	0.19	83	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.16	80	0.03	45	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		32	0.29	19	0.00	37	0.08	39	0.21	51	0.06	38	0.11
Poblocka 1999		77	0.13	45	0.00	76	0.03	74	0.03	77	0.04	73	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		11	0.40	38	0.00	12	0.20	9	0.65	18	0.68	7	0.66
Rachmaninoff 1923		67	0.17	77	0.00	63	0.05	54	0.05	64	0.04	61	0.04
Rangell 2001		18	0.35	18	0.00	11	0.14	14	0.59	12	0.48	15	0.53
Richter 1976		39	0.25	86	0.00	66	0.05	58	0.05	61	0.05	54	0.05
Rosen 1989		1	0.55	1	0.40	1	0.40	1	0.79	11	0.64	2	0.71
Rosenthal 1930		24	0.34	47	0.00	24	0.10	26	0.45	31	0.40	23	0.42
Rosenthal 1931		21	0.34	46	0.00	19	0.10	21	0.52	15	0.67	11	0.59
Rosenthal 1931b		27	0.33	78	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.48	21	0.59	17	0.53
Rosenthal 1931c		6	0.43	6	0.03	10	0.21	6	0.70	7	0.70	4	0.70
Rosenthal 1931d		35	0.29	36	0.00	25	0.12	24	0.51	11	0.56	16	0.53
Rossi 2007		36	0.28	20	0.00	29	0.08	33	0.35	6	0.59	22	0.45
Rubinstein 1939		31	0.30	35	0.00	34	0.11	38	0.22	41	0.12	31	0.16
Rubinstein 1952		50	0.23	50	0.00	31	0.08	31	0.37	50	0.06	32	0.15
Rubinstein 1966		37	0.28	72	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	73	0.04	66	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		74	0.15	79	0.00	81	0.03	75	0.03	68	0.04	78	0.03
Shebanova 2002		57	0.22	21	0.00	65	0.05	53	0.05	77	0.04	69	0.04
Smith 1975		4	0.46	2	0.32	2	0.44	2	0.78	6	0.77	1	0.77
Sokolov 2002		22	0.34	27	0.00	23	0.09	17	0.54	18	0.45	19	0.49
Sztompka 1959		49	0.23	84	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	71	0.04	46	0.07
Tomsic 1995		69	0.16	66	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	82	0.03	53	0.05
Uninsky 1932		34	0.29	42	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.15	71	0.04	43	0.08
Uninsky 1971		13	0.37	58	0.00	17	0.09	15	0.57	42	0.15	27	0.29
Wasowski 1980		54	0.22	26	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.13	73	0.05	42	0.08
Zak 1937		72	0.15	91	0.00	86	0.02	82	0.02	84	0.03	84	0.02
Zak 1951		70	0.16	54	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	78	0.03	85	0.02
Average		2	0.48	8	0.01	5	0.16	5	0.72	79	0.04	29	0.17
Random 1		86	0.07	43	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	23	0.30	44	0.08
Random 2		89	0.02	63	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	46	0.07	57	0.05
Random 3		88	0.03	48	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	11	0.47	40	0.10

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).