Czerny 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		19	0.34	40	0.00	19	0.11	17	0.70	39	0.26	25	0.43
Anderszewski 2003		44	0.18	70	0.00	37	0.11	40	0.41	48	0.07	34	0.17
Ashkenazy 1981		72	0.04	47	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	88	0.02	75	0.03
Bacha 2000		34	0.22	27	0.00	40	0.18	39	0.41	57	0.05	38	0.14
Badura 1965		58	0.10	71	0.00	52	0.08	46	0.08	76	0.03	54	0.05
Barbosa 1983		73	0.04	56	0.00	70	0.04	74	0.04	89	0.02	71	0.03
Biret 1990		6	0.47	13	0.01	10	0.25	13	0.74	5	0.73	10	0.73
Blet 2003		67	0.06	81	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	87	0.01	81	0.02
Block 1995		66	0.07	82	0.00	58	0.05	58	0.05	87	0.02	74	0.03
Blumental 1952		61	0.09	64	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	84	0.03	47	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		86	-0.05	72	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	83	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		25	0.26	57	0.00	34	0.23	28	0.61	37	0.33	24	0.45
Bunin 1987		53	0.11	65	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	85	0.03	76	0.03
Bunin 1987b		52	0.11	50	0.00	69	0.07	47	0.07	83	0.03	49	0.05
Chiu 1999		40	0.19	67	0.00	62	0.04	73	0.04	84	0.03	62	0.03
Cohen 1997		9	0.43	11	0.01	9	0.21	7	0.84	7	0.67	9	0.75
Cortot 1951		16	0.35	33	0.00	17	0.13	12	0.75	16	0.57	12	0.65
Csalog 1996		48	0.14	73	0.00	54	0.07	50	0.07	72	0.04	51	0.05
Czerny 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1990		45	0.17	58	0.00	53	0.07	51	0.07	79	0.03	55	0.05
Duchoud 2007		39	0.20	36	0.00	47	0.07	52	0.07	80	0.03	53	0.05
Ezaki 2006		5	0.48	12	0.01	6	0.24	3	0.86	5	0.74	5	0.80
Falvay 1989		11	0.41	21	0.00	14	0.15	19	0.69	13	0.45	18	0.56
Farrell 1958		14	0.38	15	0.01	18	0.10	14	0.73	17	0.50	14	0.60
Ferenczy 1958		8	0.46	6	0.03	7	0.32	4	0.86	1	0.91	1	0.88
Fliere 1977		80	-0.01	74	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.01	85	0.01
Fou 1978		26	0.26	7	0.02	39	0.16	38	0.42	71	0.03	41	0.11
Francois 1956		4	0.49	2	0.22	2	0.36	2	0.87	3	0.81	3	0.84
Friedman 1923		88	-0.05	83	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02	84	0.02
Friedman 1923b		89	-0.07	84	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	88	0.02	90	0.01
Friedman 1930		71	0.05	51	0.00	59	0.05	61	0.05	89	0.02	72	0.03
Garcia 2007		87	-0.05	85	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	89	0.02	82	0.02
Garcia 2007b		84	-0.03	86	0.00	82	0.02	83	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Gierzod 1998		65	0.07	60	0.00	48	0.06	53	0.06	67	0.04	52	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		3	0.49	10	0.01	8	0.27	5	0.86	9	0.73	6	0.79
Groot 1988		47	0.17	31	0.00	46	0.07	49	0.07	84	0.03	56	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		23	0.30	32	0.00	15	0.15	18	0.69	36	0.21	26	0.38
Hatto 1993		56	0.11	75	0.00	56	0.06	54	0.06	85	0.03	59	0.04
Hatto 1997		18	0.34	14	0.01	21	0.12	34	0.51	58	0.05	37	0.16
Horowitz 1949		78	0.00	61	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	88	0.02	78	0.02
Indjic 1988		64	0.07	87	0.00	61	0.04	70	0.04	83	0.03	70	0.03
Kapell 1951		55	0.11	48	0.00	57	0.05	57	0.05	80	0.03	58	0.04
Kissin 1993		91	-0.10	88	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.01	87	0.01
Kushner 1989		51	0.11	52	0.00	65	0.05	60	0.05	88	0.02	65	0.03
Luisada 1991		59	0.10	34	0.00	67	0.04	72	0.04	86	0.02	60	0.03
Lushtak 2004		54	0.11	89	0.00	64	0.05	59	0.05	82	0.02	73	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		60	0.09	53	0.00	51	0.07	48	0.07	83	0.03	50	0.05
Magaloff 1978		63	0.08	76	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	81	0.03	57	0.04
Magin 1975		70	0.05	62	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	67	0.05	48	0.05
Michalowski 1933		77	0.00	77	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	88	0.02	69	0.03
Milkina 1970		7	0.47	3	0.16	3	0.30	9	0.81	3	0.76	7	0.78
Mohovich 1999		37	0.21	26	0.00	27	0.11	30	0.53	58	0.06	32	0.18
Moravec 1969		12	0.40	4	0.10	5	0.20	8	0.83	6	0.69	8	0.76
Morozova 2008		43	0.18	42	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.17	82	0.03	45	0.07
Neighaus 1950		21	0.32	19	0.00	20	0.15	25	0.64	52	0.08	29	0.23
Niedzielski 1931		81	-0.01	43	0.00	74	0.05	62	0.05	87	0.02	64	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.25	18	0.00	35	0.14	33	0.51	67	0.04	40	0.14
Osinska 1989		17	0.35	30	0.00	16	0.14	15	0.72	25	0.50	13	0.60
Pachmann 1927		82	-0.02	59	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.02
Paderewski 1930		90	-0.09	78	0.00	83	0.02	82	0.02	91	0.01	86	0.01
Perlemuter 1992		79	-0.01	79	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	89	0.02	77	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		57	0.10	38	0.00	60	0.04	71	0.04	88	0.02	63	0.03
Poblocka 1999		68	0.06	41	0.00	73	0.04	77	0.04	83	0.03	61	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		2	0.52	5	0.03	4	0.31	6	0.84	2	0.81	4	0.82
Rachmaninoff 1923		29	0.25	17	0.00	36	0.12	37	0.47	65	0.04	39	0.14
Rangell 2001		46	0.17	8	0.01	26	0.10	29	0.56	48	0.06	33	0.18
Richter 1976		75	0.01	68	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.02	79	0.02
Rosen 1989		36	0.21	54	0.00	41	0.08	41	0.27	55	0.04	42	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		22	0.31	35	0.00	22	0.16	20	0.69	20	0.45	19	0.56
Rosenthal 1931		32	0.23	23	0.00	33	0.19	23	0.65	28	0.51	16	0.58
Rosenthal 1931b		35	0.22	55	0.00	32	0.13	26	0.62	27	0.50	20	0.56
Rosenthal 1931c		24	0.29	45	0.00	23	0.14	16	0.71	25	0.47	17	0.58
Rosenthal 1931d		38	0.21	20	0.00	31	0.15	24	0.65	21	0.46	21	0.55
Rossi 2007		42	0.18	44	0.00	49	0.05	63	0.05	42	0.11	44	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		10	0.42	22	0.00	11	0.27	10	0.80	7	0.55	11	0.66
Rubinstein 1952		33	0.22	37	0.00	25	0.09	27	0.61	42	0.12	28	0.27
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.26	39	0.00	30	0.12	32	0.53	53	0.05	36	0.16
Schilhawsky 1960		83	-0.02	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.01
Shebanova 2002		85	-0.03	46	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01
Smith 1975		1	0.56	1	0.31	1	0.30	1	0.87	4	0.81	2	0.84
Sokolov 2002		15	0.38	16	0.00	12	0.17	22	0.67	13	0.52	15	0.59
Sztompka 1959		62	0.08	66	0.00	63	0.05	64	0.05	87	0.02	68	0.03
Tomsic 1995		30	0.24	63	0.00	29	0.13	31	0.53	50	0.05	35	0.16
Uninsky 1932		41	0.19	28	0.00	42	0.08	42	0.18	79	0.04	43	0.08
Uninsky 1971		13	0.39	25	0.00	13	0.16	11	0.78	25	0.33	22	0.51
Wasowski 1980		31	0.23	29	0.00	38	0.12	36	0.47	48	0.07	30	0.18
Zak 1937		74	0.04	91	0.00	77	0.04	69	0.04	87	0.02	66	0.03
Zak 1951		69	0.05	49	0.00	72	0.04	66	0.04	87	0.02	67	0.03
Average		20	0.34	69	0.00	24	0.12	21	0.67	64	0.05	31	0.18
Random 1		76	0.01	80	0.00	71	0.05	65	0.05	44	0.11	46	0.07
Random 2		50	0.12	9	0.01	28	0.10	35	0.48	3	0.54	23	0.51
Random 3		49	0.13	24	0.00	43	0.06	44	0.17	1	0.74	27	0.35

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).