Hatto 1997

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		11	0.43	50	0.00	10	0.12	8	0.56	10	0.59	8	0.57
Anderszewski 2003		67	0.23	40	0.00	58	0.04	64	0.04	35	0.21	53	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		8	0.45	49	0.00	13	0.09	9	0.55	32	0.47	15	0.51
Bacha 2000		27	0.37	17	0.00	31	0.06	35	0.22	19	0.48	27	0.32
Badura 1965		73	0.19	71	0.00	78	0.04	70	0.04	67	0.04	75	0.04
Barbosa 1983		20	0.40	28	0.00	15	0.13	11	0.53	11	0.63	7	0.58
Biret 1990		9	0.45	5	0.01	24	0.08	18	0.45	6	0.72	9	0.57
Blet 2003		18	0.41	72	0.00	19	0.09	17	0.45	17	0.57	13	0.51
Block 1995		78	0.16	73	0.00	76	0.04	71	0.04	78	0.04	76	0.04
Blumental 1952		25	0.38	41	0.00	20	0.10	20	0.43	11	0.60	14	0.51
Boshniakovich 1969		81	0.14	54	0.00	62	0.03	75	0.03	63	0.05	78	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		88	0.09	55	0.00	85	0.02	89	0.02	72	0.04	80	0.03
Bunin 1987		51	0.29	11	0.00	11	0.12	25	0.30	31	0.40	24	0.35
Bunin 1987b		50	0.30	44	0.00	12	0.10	28	0.29	31	0.38	26	0.33
Chiu 1999		17	0.41	33	0.00	33	0.06	34	0.22	56	0.07	46	0.12
Cohen 1997		44	0.32	42	0.00	55	0.06	50	0.06	34	0.38	39	0.15
Cortot 1951		61	0.24	34	0.00	61	0.04	65	0.04	51	0.06	70	0.05
Csalog 1996		69	0.21	62	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	64	0.05	73	0.04
Czerny 1949		36	0.34	6	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	34	0.51	37	0.16
Czerny 1990		33	0.35	80	0.00	46	0.06	53	0.06	37	0.34	40	0.14
Duchoud 2007		26	0.38	23	0.00	30	0.11	29	0.27	37	0.23	31	0.25
Ezaki 2006		46	0.31	63	0.00	51	0.05	60	0.05	34	0.27	45	0.12
Falvay 1989		7	0.47	3	0.01	18	0.09	14	0.48	10	0.51	17	0.49
Farrell 1958		60	0.25	56	0.00	54	0.07	47	0.07	56	0.06	60	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		70	0.20	51	0.00	70	0.04	68	0.04	35	0.53	38	0.15
Fliere 1977		66	0.24	81	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	61	0.05	71	0.04
Fou 1978		37	0.34	30	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.15	46	0.07	51	0.10
Francois 1956		32	0.35	20	0.00	26	0.09	21	0.37	14	0.67	16	0.50
Friedman 1923		83	0.14	64	0.00	88	0.04	74	0.04	83	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		85	0.13	74	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		35	0.35	31	0.00	40	0.06	42	0.14	48	0.09	48	0.11
Garcia 2007		71	0.20	7	0.00	50	0.06	55	0.06	52	0.06	61	0.06
Garcia 2007b		34	0.35	12	0.00	22	0.11	23	0.36	18	0.55	19	0.44
Gierzod 1998		84	0.13	58	0.00	67	0.04	66	0.04	53	0.06	69	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		38	0.33	57	0.00	56	0.06	51	0.06	36	0.30	44	0.13
Groot 1988		21	0.40	15	0.00	21	0.10	15	0.47	44	0.14	30	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		29	0.36	82	0.00	37	0.07	33	0.22	69	0.04	54	0.09
Hatto 1993		2	0.79	2	0.14	2	0.88	2	0.94	2	0.94	2	0.94
Hatto 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Horowitz 1949		47	0.31	75	0.00	41	0.05	45	0.11	42	0.24	36	0.16
Indjic 1988		1	0.83	1	0.79	1	0.78	1	0.96	2	0.96	1	0.96
Kapell 1951		6	0.48	10	0.00	6	0.12	5	0.64	11	0.59	5	0.61
Kissin 1993		65	0.24	83	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	57	0.07	67	0.05
Kushner 1989		53	0.29	84	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	53	0.06	64	0.05
Luisada 1991		5	0.48	13	0.00	3	0.27	4	0.70	8	0.72	3	0.71
Lushtak 2004		72	0.19	85	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		57	0.27	16	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	46	0.08	57	0.07
Magaloff 1978		80	0.15	76	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.03
Magin 1975		28	0.36	59	0.00	23	0.11	19	0.44	21	0.60	12	0.51
Michalowski 1933		52	0.29	25	0.00	36	0.05	36	0.21	48	0.08	42	0.13
Milkina 1970		10	0.43	9	0.00	9	0.14	12	0.52	7	0.65	6	0.58
Mohovich 1999		56	0.27	45	0.00	17	0.12	30	0.26	36	0.23	32	0.24
Moravec 1969		43	0.32	35	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.13	33	0.25	35	0.18
Morozova 2008		39	0.33	65	0.00	52	0.06	56	0.06	63	0.05	68	0.05
Neighaus 1950		19	0.41	4	0.01	27	0.09	22	0.36	41	0.16	33	0.24
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.26	60	0.00	57	0.06	48	0.06	46	0.07	59	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		40	0.33	77	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.13	59	0.05	55	0.08
Osinska 1989		58	0.26	46	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	52	0.06	63	0.05
Pachmann 1927		86	0.11	86	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	75	0.04	84	0.03
Paderewski 1930		54	0.28	66	0.00	35	0.05	37	0.20	42	0.23	34	0.21
Perlemuter 1992		82	0.14	87	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.03	79	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		42	0.32	67	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	29	0.30	41	0.13
Poblocka 1999		68	0.21	38	0.00	60	0.05	59	0.05	70	0.04	72	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		30	0.36	88	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.19	23	0.59	25	0.33
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.28	24	0.00	59	0.04	63	0.04	69	0.03	82	0.03
Rangell 2001		79	0.15	89	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.03
Richter 1976		49	0.30	52	0.00	65	0.05	57	0.05	68	0.05	66	0.05
Rosen 1989		45	0.31	22	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	74	0.03	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		31	0.36	48	0.00	28	0.08	26	0.29	25	0.43	23	0.35
Rosenthal 1931		77	0.16	78	0.00	71	0.04	73	0.04	45	0.15	56	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		76	0.17	90	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	43	0.15	58	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		63	0.24	43	0.00	66	0.06	54	0.06	46	0.06	62	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		75	0.17	19	0.00	68	0.04	67	0.04	37	0.29	50	0.11
Rossi 2007		90	-0.05	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.01	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		12	0.43	36	0.00	8	0.13	24	0.34	17	0.37	22	0.35
Rubinstein 1952		15	0.42	47	0.00	7	0.11	6	0.60	5	0.68	4	0.64
Rubinstein 1966		13	0.43	39	0.00	16	0.12	13	0.51	18	0.43	18	0.47
Schilhawsky 1960		74	0.19	32	0.00	77	0.03	86	0.03	47	0.06	74	0.04
Shebanova 2002		41	0.33	53	0.00	38	0.06	39	0.17	61	0.07	49	0.11
Smith 1975		22	0.40	26	0.00	29	0.10	27	0.29	19	0.50	21	0.38
Sokolov 2002		23	0.40	14	0.00	32	0.05	32	0.24	19	0.44	28	0.32
Sztompka 1959		48	0.30	29	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.14	59	0.06	52	0.09
Tomsic 1995		14	0.43	8	0.00	14	0.11	10	0.53	5	0.59	10	0.56
Uninsky 1932		24	0.39	27	0.00	34	0.05	31	0.24	51	0.07	43	0.13
Uninsky 1971		4	0.49	68	0.00	5	0.23	7	0.57	10	0.52	11	0.54
Wasowski 1980		16	0.41	18	0.00	25	0.11	16	0.45	35	0.41	20	0.43
Zak 1937		62	0.24	69	0.00	73	0.04	62	0.04	55	0.06	65	0.05
Zak 1951		64	0.24	79	0.00	72	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03
Average		3	0.57	21	0.00	4	0.40	3	0.80	40	0.13	29	0.32
Random 1		89	0.00	37	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	54	0.04	86	0.03
Random 2		87	0.11	61	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	12	0.46	47	0.12
Random 3		91	-0.06	70	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	53	0.04	89	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).