Hatto 1993

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		46	0.34	7	0.00	31	0.08	34	0.28	25	0.45	34	0.35
Anderszewski 2003		60	0.29	33	0.00	58	0.08	56	0.08	31	0.28	53	0.15
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.66	2	0.00	3	0.27	3	0.87	5	0.87	3	0.87
Bacha 2000		36	0.40	27	0.00	30	0.08	32	0.29	5	0.65	28	0.43
Badura 1965		65	0.24	47	0.00	67	0.05	71	0.05	56	0.04	74	0.04
Barbosa 1983		26	0.44	9	0.00	21	0.12	16	0.53	4	0.72	14	0.62
Biret 1990		73	0.20	20	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	55	0.05	76	0.04
Blet 2003		15	0.48	21	0.00	17	0.11	22	0.51	24	0.54	25	0.52
Block 1995		47	0.34	62	0.00	50	0.09	53	0.09	41	0.15	54	0.12
Blumental 1952		25	0.44	48	0.00	28	0.09	25	0.46	7	0.71	19	0.57
Boshniakovich 1969		57	0.30	28	0.00	52	0.13	45	0.13	66	0.05	56	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		88	0.04	10	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	79	0.03	89	0.02
Bunin 1987		54	0.31	63	0.00	32	0.08	40	0.23	24	0.43	35	0.31
Bunin 1987b		53	0.31	64	0.00	37	0.10	41	0.22	30	0.39	39	0.29
Chiu 1999		9	0.54	23	0.00	15	0.11	11	0.61	16	0.64	13	0.62
Cohen 1997		74	0.19	65	0.00	78	0.04	76	0.04	69	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		78	0.17	66	0.00	82	0.04	77	0.04	65	0.04	77	0.04
Csalog 1996		66	0.24	67	0.00	68	0.05	68	0.05	59	0.05	69	0.05
Czerny 1949		84	0.11	68	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	54	0.06	73	0.04
Czerny 1990		13	0.49	34	0.00	13	0.11	12	0.60	12	0.77	10	0.68
Duchoud 2007		28	0.44	11	0.00	22	0.09	29	0.32	25	0.45	31	0.38
Ezaki 2006		72	0.20	5	0.00	72	0.06	65	0.06	62	0.05	62	0.05
Falvay 1989		40	0.38	69	0.00	47	0.08	54	0.08	19	0.40	49	0.18
Farrell 1958		82	0.12	35	0.00	74	0.04	78	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		87	0.04	49	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	65	0.04	81	0.03
Fliere 1977		21	0.45	16	0.00	29	0.08	26	0.43	32	0.49	26	0.46
Fou 1978		32	0.42	36	0.00	40	0.09	36	0.25	29	0.37	36	0.30
Francois 1956		69	0.22	50	0.00	71	0.06	67	0.06	48	0.07	61	0.06
Friedman 1923		50	0.32	51	0.00	61	0.07	60	0.07	46	0.12	55	0.09
Friedman 1923b		52	0.32	70	0.00	60	0.06	66	0.06	46	0.12	57	0.08
Friedman 1930		19	0.46	17	0.00	27	0.10	24	0.47	22	0.59	23	0.53
Garcia 2007		48	0.34	37	0.00	49	0.08	57	0.08	26	0.40	51	0.18
Garcia 2007b		23	0.45	29	0.00	10	0.13	14	0.59	4	0.76	12	0.67
Gierzod 1998		71	0.21	24	0.00	55	0.07	59	0.07	48	0.08	59	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		75	0.18	71	0.00	76	0.04	79	0.04	63	0.04	75	0.04
Groot 1988		11	0.54	52	0.00	9	0.15	9	0.69	6	0.73	9	0.71
Harasiewicz 1955		27	0.44	72	0.00	41	0.11	33	0.28	31	0.26	41	0.27
Hatto 1993		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1997		2	0.79	3	0.00	2	0.82	2	0.94	2	0.94	2	0.94
Horowitz 1949		38	0.39	53	0.00	36	0.07	28	0.35	20	0.57	27	0.45
Indjic 1988		1	0.96	1	0.99	1	0.97	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Kapell 1951		8	0.55	8	0.00	8	0.17	10	0.69	2	0.77	8	0.73
Kissin 1993		14	0.49	54	0.00	14	0.11	13	0.59	11	0.75	11	0.67
Kushner 1989		31	0.43	13	0.00	48	0.08	55	0.08	28	0.41	50	0.18
Luisada 1991		10	0.54	25	0.00	6	0.35	7	0.74	7	0.76	6	0.75
Lushtak 2004		79	0.15	73	0.00	83	0.04	80	0.04	89	0.02	83	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		39	0.39	38	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.17	25	0.38	42	0.25
Magaloff 1978		67	0.23	55	0.00	57	0.07	63	0.07	75	0.03	65	0.05
Magin 1975		6	0.57	56	0.00	7	0.33	6	0.78	1	0.87	4	0.82
Michalowski 1933		20	0.46	74	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.50	6	0.66	18	0.57
Milkina 1970		35	0.40	75	0.00	34	0.07	35	0.26	13	0.60	29	0.39
Mohovich 1999		55	0.30	22	0.00	51	0.09	51	0.09	30	0.30	52	0.16
Moravec 1969		42	0.37	39	0.00	46	0.09	52	0.09	25	0.36	48	0.18
Morozova 2008		34	0.41	6	0.00	35	0.07	30	0.32	31	0.28	38	0.30
Neighaus 1950		22	0.45	40	0.00	26	0.10	31	0.31	34	0.28	40	0.29
Niedzielski 1931		16	0.48	30	0.00	16	0.13	17	0.53	8	0.65	17	0.59
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.44	14	0.00	18	0.10	27	0.41	24	0.37	30	0.39
Osinska 1989		77	0.17	41	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	66	0.04	79	0.03
Pachmann 1927		49	0.34	57	0.00	53	0.12	48	0.12	38	0.29	47	0.19
Paderewski 1930		18	0.47	12	0.00	11	0.13	20	0.52	7	0.72	15	0.61
Perlemuter 1992		61	0.27	42	0.00	64	0.07	58	0.07	70	0.04	63	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		41	0.38	58	0.00	43	0.09	42	0.21	14	0.59	33	0.35
Poblocka 1999		63	0.25	43	0.00	59	0.06	64	0.06	54	0.05	64	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		80	0.13	76	0.00	84	0.04	75	0.04	78	0.03	80	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		62	0.26	77	0.00	65	0.09	50	0.09	72	0.03	66	0.05
Rangell 2001		76	0.18	78	0.00	66	0.05	69	0.05	85	0.02	86	0.03
Richter 1976		7	0.56	26	0.00	12	0.14	8	0.70	15	0.78	7	0.74
Rosen 1989		51	0.32	79	0.00	56	0.07	61	0.07	84	0.03	70	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		59	0.29	18	0.00	39	0.07	44	0.16	36	0.31	44	0.22
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.13	80	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	50	0.06	68	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.11	81	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	60	0.04	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.23	82	0.00	70	0.05	70	0.05	63	0.04	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.05	59	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.03
Rossi 2007		91	-0.07	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	87	0.02	90	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		43	0.37	19	0.00	45	0.06	46	0.13	21	0.31	46	0.20
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.39	60	0.00	42	0.08	38	0.25	15	0.55	32	0.37
Rubinstein 1966		33	0.42	84	0.00	33	0.07	37	0.25	23	0.36	37	0.30
Schilhawsky 1960		70	0.21	85	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	51	0.05	72	0.04
Shebanova 2002		5	0.59	86	0.00	5	0.24	5	0.80	8	0.77	5	0.78
Smith 1975		64	0.24	87	0.00	73	0.04	73	0.04	49	0.06	67	0.05
Sokolov 2002		44	0.36	88	0.00	54	0.12	47	0.12	28	0.38	45	0.21
Sztompka 1959		29	0.43	44	0.00	23	0.09	19	0.53	21	0.52	24	0.52
Tomsic 1995		30	0.43	31	0.00	24	0.09	21	0.52	7	0.56	20	0.54
Uninsky 1932		12	0.50	15	0.00	20	0.15	15	0.55	16	0.53	21	0.54
Uninsky 1971		45	0.35	32	0.00	38	0.07	39	0.24	31	0.27	43	0.25
Wasowski 1980		17	0.48	45	0.00	19	0.11	18	0.53	25	0.54	22	0.53
Zak 1937		56	0.30	46	0.00	62	0.07	62	0.07	56	0.06	60	0.06
Zak 1951		58	0.29	89	0.00	63	0.10	49	0.10	59	0.05	58	0.07
Average		4	0.65	4	0.00	4	0.27	4	0.83	21	0.44	16	0.60
Random 1		89	0.02	90	0.00	89	0.02	86	0.02	50	0.04	84	0.03
Random 2		86	0.04	91	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	53	0.05	82	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.06	61	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	78	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).