Indjic 1988

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		51	0.32	58	0.00	33	0.09	36	0.27	31	0.35	36	0.31
Anderszewski 2003		64	0.23	59	0.00	62	0.05	68	0.05	38	0.18	52	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.68	15	0.00	3	0.37	3	0.88	4	0.87	3	0.87
Bacha 2000		26	0.41	3	0.00	31	0.09	28	0.37	6	0.65	25	0.49
Badura 1965		66	0.21	28	0.00	69	0.05	69	0.05	75	0.03	74	0.04
Barbosa 1983		20	0.47	18	0.00	13	0.11	12	0.63	3	0.73	12	0.68
Biret 1990		59	0.25	60	0.00	68	0.05	70	0.05	46	0.09	59	0.07
Blet 2003		19	0.47	61	0.00	15	0.10	24	0.54	15	0.60	21	0.57
Block 1995		54	0.29	62	0.00	52	0.09	48	0.09	48	0.06	56	0.07
Blumental 1952		23	0.46	29	0.00	24	0.10	22	0.56	5	0.72	17	0.63
Boshniakovich 1969		57	0.26	12	0.00	49	0.08	51	0.08	59	0.06	58	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		88	0.00	16	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	86	0.03	87	0.02
Bunin 1987		49	0.33	41	0.00	25	0.10	30	0.35	18	0.53	29	0.43
Bunin 1987b		48	0.33	42	0.00	28	0.11	32	0.34	18	0.51	30	0.42
Chiu 1999		12	0.50	63	0.00	16	0.12	11	0.64	18	0.63	16	0.63
Cohen 1997		72	0.16	64	0.00	79	0.04	77	0.04	77	0.02	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		79	0.09	65	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Csalog 1996		65	0.22	30	0.00	67	0.08	53	0.08	76	0.04	62	0.06
Czerny 1949		83	0.07	66	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	70	0.04	81	0.03
Czerny 1990		17	0.48	43	0.00	20	0.11	17	0.59	15	0.75	14	0.67
Duchoud 2007		27	0.41	19	0.00	29	0.10	33	0.32	28	0.39	34	0.35
Ezaki 2006		74	0.15	67	0.00	75	0.06	62	0.06	68	0.04	65	0.05
Falvay 1989		34	0.40	4	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.20	16	0.43	38	0.29
Farrell 1958		81	0.08	44	0.00	80	0.04	78	0.04	84	0.02	78	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		89	-0.01	20	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	69	0.04	80	0.03
Fliere 1977		32	0.40	31	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.31	47	0.10	44	0.18
Fou 1978		41	0.35	68	0.00	51	0.08	52	0.08	58	0.05	61	0.06
Francois 1956		70	0.19	45	0.00	70	0.05	71	0.05	49	0.06	70	0.05
Friedman 1923		52	0.30	69	0.00	58	0.07	56	0.07	50	0.09	55	0.08
Friedman 1923b		53	0.30	32	0.00	57	0.06	64	0.06	48	0.11	54	0.08
Friedman 1930		21	0.46	70	0.00	22	0.11	23	0.55	16	0.62	20	0.58
Garcia 2007		50	0.33	71	0.00	36	0.07	37	0.26	30	0.38	37	0.31
Garcia 2007b		18	0.48	33	0.00	8	0.22	10	0.65	3	0.79	8	0.72
Gierzod 1998		73	0.16	72	0.00	56	0.06	61	0.06	64	0.05	68	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		78	0.13	73	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	73	0.03	84	0.03
Groot 1988		9	0.52	34	0.00	11	0.16	8	0.71	9	0.69	9	0.70
Harasiewicz 1955		35	0.39	74	0.00	47	0.07	57	0.07	54	0.06	64	0.06
Hatto 1993		1	0.96	1	0.99	1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Hatto 1997		2	0.83	2	0.00	2	0.87	2	0.96	1	0.96	2	0.96
Horowitz 1949		31	0.40	75	0.00	30	0.07	29	0.36	21	0.55	28	0.44
Indjic 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kapell 1951		8	0.56	76	0.00	9	0.19	9	0.70	3	0.75	7	0.72
Kissin 1993		13	0.49	46	0.00	19	0.15	13	0.63	12	0.75	11	0.69
Kushner 1989		25	0.42	77	0.00	41	0.07	43	0.20	27	0.42	39	0.29
Luisada 1991		6	0.58	47	0.00	4	0.34	6	0.78	4	0.80	5	0.79
Lushtak 2004		77	0.13	23	0.00	76	0.04	79	0.04	85	0.02	82	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		29	0.40	48	0.00	32	0.08	26	0.41	22	0.47	27	0.44
Magaloff 1978		69	0.19	78	0.00	61	0.06	67	0.06	79	0.03	72	0.04
Magin 1975		5	0.58	8	0.00	7	0.36	5	0.81	2	0.87	4	0.84
Michalowski 1933		24	0.45	79	0.00	21	0.10	21	0.56	5	0.67	18	0.61
Milkina 1970		38	0.38	35	0.00	44	0.09	40	0.21	14	0.57	32	0.35
Mohovich 1999		60	0.24	13	0.00	50	0.08	49	0.08	44	0.16	49	0.11
Moravec 1969		44	0.34	49	0.00	46	0.06	60	0.06	29	0.28	48	0.13
Morozova 2008		40	0.37	6	0.00	35	0.10	31	0.35	36	0.20	40	0.26
Neighaus 1950		30	0.40	17	0.00	43	0.07	39	0.22	44	0.12	47	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		15	0.48	36	0.00	12	0.11	14	0.63	7	0.65	15	0.64
Ohlsson 1999		33	0.40	10	0.00	26	0.09	27	0.39	30	0.31	33	0.35
Osinska 1989		75	0.14	24	0.00	73	0.05	73	0.05	81	0.03	71	0.04
Pachmann 1927		55	0.28	50	0.00	53	0.10	47	0.10	53	0.07	53	0.08
Paderewski 1930		16	0.48	25	0.00	10	0.14	16	0.61	6	0.73	13	0.67
Perlemuter 1992		58	0.25	26	0.00	65	0.06	58	0.06	59	0.04	66	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		42	0.35	80	0.00	39	0.07	44	0.19	19	0.49	35	0.31
Poblocka 1999		67	0.21	37	0.00	66	0.08	54	0.08	72	0.04	60	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		80	0.09	81	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	69	0.04	77	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		56	0.27	9	0.00	59	0.06	66	0.06	50	0.05	67	0.05
Rangell 2001		76	0.14	82	0.00	71	0.05	72	0.05	79	0.03	76	0.04
Richter 1976		11	0.50	51	0.00	17	0.10	15	0.63	20	0.75	10	0.69
Rosen 1989		61	0.23	27	0.00	63	0.06	63	0.06	86	0.03	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		63	0.23	52	0.00	60	0.06	59	0.06	59	0.05	69	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.07	83	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	73	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.07	84	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.17	85	0.00	72	0.04	74	0.04	79	0.02	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.05	86	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		91	-0.12	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		43	0.34	14	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.13	22	0.30	43	0.20
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.39	21	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.29	19	0.51	31	0.38
Rubinstein 1966		39	0.37	53	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.20	27	0.27	42	0.23
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.23	54	0.00	64	0.06	65	0.06	41	0.17	51	0.10
Shebanova 2002		7	0.57	22	0.00	5	0.24	7	0.76	13	0.73	6	0.74
Smith 1975		68	0.20	88	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.05	73	0.04
Sokolov 2002		36	0.39	55	0.00	48	0.07	55	0.07	20	0.44	45	0.18
Sztompka 1959		28	0.40	89	0.00	27	0.09	25	0.50	27	0.41	26	0.45
Tomsic 1995		22	0.46	7	0.00	23	0.15	20	0.57	4	0.60	19	0.58
Uninsky 1932		10	0.52	38	0.00	18	0.11	18	0.58	15	0.54	23	0.56
Uninsky 1971		45	0.34	5	0.00	34	0.07	38	0.25	33	0.25	41	0.25
Wasowski 1980		14	0.49	39	0.00	14	0.10	19	0.58	22	0.55	22	0.56
Zak 1937		46	0.33	56	0.00	54	0.08	50	0.08	42	0.13	50	0.10
Zak 1951		47	0.33	57	0.00	55	0.13	46	0.13	37	0.25	46	0.18
Average		4	0.61	11	0.00	6	0.21	4	0.83	26	0.36	24	0.55
Random 1		87	0.04	40	0.00	83	0.02	88	0.02	27	0.27	57	0.07
Random 2		85	0.06	90	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	36	0.17	63	0.06
Random 3		90	-0.05	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	71	0.03	88	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).