Csalog 1996

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		62	0.22	58	0.00	66	0.07	49	0.07	82	0.03	59	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		77	0.11	86	0.00	69	0.04	79	0.04	84	0.03	78	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		40	0.30	74	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.14	50	0.08	41	0.11
Bacha 2000		87	-0.04	78	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Badura 1965		65	0.22	75	0.00	59	0.05	65	0.05	57	0.04	71	0.04
Barbosa 1983		69	0.19	76	0.00	71	0.04	73	0.04	81	0.03	77	0.03
Biret 1990		14	0.41	20	0.00	7	0.15	16	0.52	18	0.59	10	0.55
Blet 2003		22	0.37	61	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.39	51	0.07	30	0.17
Block 1995		29	0.33	16	0.01	40	0.07	40	0.19	60	0.05	44	0.10
Blumental 1952		81	0.05	79	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	86	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		47	0.25	45	0.00	56	0.06	50	0.06	54	0.06	53	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.18	56	0.00	75	0.06	52	0.06	67	0.04	56	0.05
Bunin 1987		45	0.28	69	0.00	34	0.08	31	0.32	42	0.15	24	0.22
Bunin 1987b		42	0.28	70	0.00	33	0.07	30	0.32	41	0.15	22	0.22
Chiu 1999		3	0.50	4	0.07	4	0.32	3	0.76	21	0.60	4	0.68
Cohen 1997		49	0.25	33	0.00	73	0.05	63	0.05	65	0.03	73	0.04
Cortot 1951		60	0.22	31	0.00	76	0.07	47	0.07	66	0.04	62	0.05
Csalog 1996		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1949		76	0.14	87	0.00	67	0.04	72	0.04	50	0.07	58	0.05
Czerny 1990		50	0.25	39	0.00	49	0.06	55	0.06	49	0.08	49	0.07
Duchoud 2007		5	0.50	1	0.29	1	0.29	1	0.79	4	0.75	1	0.77
Ezaki 2006		82	0.02	80	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01
Falvay 1989		56	0.24	55	0.00	25	0.07	36	0.21	49	0.06	38	0.11
Farrell 1958		16	0.41	28	0.00	14	0.11	10	0.59	7	0.58	6	0.58
Ferenczy 1958		85	-0.03	81	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.03	83	0.02
Fliere 1977		7	0.47	14	0.01	12	0.13	9	0.61	44	0.30	16	0.43
Fou 1978		54	0.24	46	0.00	57	0.06	53	0.06	83	0.03	65	0.04
Francois 1956		73	0.16	82	0.00	77	0.04	77	0.04	84	0.02	81	0.03
Friedman 1923		9	0.45	25	0.00	9	0.10	7	0.64	29	0.50	8	0.57
Friedman 1923b		10	0.45	12	0.01	10	0.12	8	0.64	26	0.53	7	0.58
Friedman 1930		24	0.37	40	0.00	35	0.07	32	0.32	46	0.11	28	0.19
Garcia 2007		67	0.20	53	0.00	58	0.06	51	0.06	69	0.05	60	0.05
Garcia 2007b		58	0.23	18	0.01	48	0.06	54	0.06	51	0.07	54	0.06
Gierzod 1998		86	-0.03	77	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.02
Gornostaeva 1994		30	0.33	24	0.00	41	0.06	45	0.14	47	0.08	42	0.11
Groot 1988		25	0.36	50	0.00	38	0.09	33	0.31	66	0.06	37	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.40	35	0.00	37	0.09	29	0.34	46	0.07	35	0.15
Hatto 1993		52	0.24	73	0.00	63	0.05	59	0.05	68	0.05	61	0.05
Hatto 1997		66	0.21	62	0.00	65	0.05	64	0.05	82	0.03	70	0.04
Horowitz 1949		39	0.30	15	0.01	44	0.07	43	0.15	69	0.05	46	0.09
Indjic 1988		61	0.22	54	0.00	62	0.04	76	0.04	53	0.08	51	0.06
Kapell 1951		64	0.22	88	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	53	0.07	50	0.06
Kissin 1993		43	0.28	8	0.02	19	0.10	22	0.44	39	0.33	19	0.38
Kushner 1989		46	0.27	13	0.01	28	0.07	38	0.20	44	0.14	29	0.17
Luisada 1991		18	0.39	19	0.01	20	0.08	18	0.50	40	0.27	20	0.37
Lushtak 2004		57	0.23	10	0.02	54	0.05	68	0.05	45	0.09	48	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		63	0.22	57	0.00	55	0.05	67	0.05	57	0.05	57	0.05
Magaloff 1978		15	0.41	23	0.00	16	0.12	14	0.56	27	0.43	13	0.49
Magin 1975		38	0.31	37	0.00	47	0.07	48	0.07	47	0.10	47	0.08
Michalowski 1933		4	0.50	3	0.11	3	0.27	2	0.77	4	0.72	2	0.74
Milkina 1970		78	0.10	65	0.00	60	0.05	66	0.05	69	0.03	66	0.04
Mohovich 1999		75	0.15	36	0.00	74	0.05	61	0.05	75	0.03	72	0.04
Moravec 1969		53	0.24	83	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	68	0.04	55	0.05
Morozova 2008		32	0.33	41	0.00	36	0.08	34	0.26	69	0.04	43	0.10
Neighaus 1950		21	0.38	59	0.00	27	0.08	21	0.44	64	0.05	34	0.15
Niedzielski 1931		35	0.32	66	0.00	32	0.07	28	0.39	59	0.06	33	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		13	0.41	42	0.00	18	0.10	20	0.45	41	0.11	23	0.22
Osinska 1989		6	0.50	6	0.03	5	0.25	6	0.65	11	0.68	5	0.66
Pachmann 1927		12	0.45	5	0.04	8	0.10	12	0.58	21	0.54	9	0.56
Paderewski 1930		48	0.25	29	0.00	31	0.07	37	0.21	44	0.21	25	0.21
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.31	38	0.00	39	0.07	39	0.20	44	0.13	32	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		27	0.35	84	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.17	57	0.05	45	0.09
Poblocka 1999		20	0.38	11	0.01	21	0.08	19	0.47	24	0.39	17	0.43
Rabcewiczowa 1932		74	0.16	89	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	71	0.03	76	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		36	0.31	30	0.00	23	0.11	26	0.40	28	0.41	18	0.40
Rangell 2001		68	0.19	43	0.00	61	0.04	75	0.04	76	0.04	74	0.04
Richter 1976		8	0.45	47	0.00	11	0.10	13	0.57	38	0.43	12	0.50
Rosen 1989		11	0.45	9	0.02	13	0.12	11	0.58	35	0.35	15	0.45
Rosenthal 1930		80	0.07	67	0.00	80	0.04	78	0.04	85	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		90	-0.05	90	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		84	-0.03	91	0.00	83	0.02	83	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.08	44	0.00	68	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		89	-0.05	71	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		31	0.33	60	0.00	46	0.06	57	0.06	3	0.69	27	0.20
Rubinstein 1939		34	0.32	22	0.00	24	0.09	25	0.40	20	0.32	21	0.36
Rubinstein 1952		51	0.25	63	0.00	51	0.06	56	0.06	55	0.05	63	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		44	0.28	7	0.02	29	0.08	35	0.26	57	0.05	40	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		55	0.24	51	0.00	64	0.05	70	0.05	72	0.04	69	0.04
Shebanova 2002		19	0.39	26	0.00	15	0.11	15	0.53	51	0.08	26	0.21
Smith 1975		70	0.19	72	0.00	79	0.04	71	0.04	81	0.03	75	0.03
Sokolov 2002		41	0.29	49	0.00	52	0.05	58	0.05	57	0.04	64	0.04
Sztompka 1959		33	0.33	48	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.19	54	0.06	39	0.11
Tomsic 1995		72	0.17	52	0.00	70	0.05	69	0.05	77	0.03	67	0.04
Uninsky 1932		26	0.36	32	0.00	22	0.10	23	0.42	61	0.05	36	0.14
Uninsky 1971		59	0.23	85	0.00	72	0.05	62	0.05	80	0.03	68	0.04
Wasowski 1980		1	0.52	2	0.26	2	0.39	4	0.75	13	0.64	3	0.69
Zak 1937		23	0.37	17	0.01	17	0.11	17	0.51	14	0.55	11	0.53
Zak 1951		28	0.34	68	0.00	26	0.07	24	0.42	18	0.50	14	0.46
Average		2	0.51	21	0.00	6	0.24	5	0.71	73	0.04	31	0.17
Random 1		83	0.01	64	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	42	0.13	52	0.06
Random 2		88	-0.05	34	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	73	0.03	84	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.07	27	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	46	0.05	87	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).