Moravec 1969

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		37	0.33	10	0.01	17	0.12	19	0.46	20	0.49	13	0.47
Anderszewski 2003		68	0.25	73	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	29	0.31	54	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		4	0.48	11	0.01	4	0.18	4	0.70	23	0.62	6	0.66
Bacha 2000		73	0.23	57	0.00	76	0.04	66	0.04	52	0.06	67	0.05
Badura 1965		50	0.29	44	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	34	0.29	55	0.11
Barbosa 1983		77	0.21	41	0.00	81	0.04	70	0.04	83	0.03	85	0.03
Biret 1990		83	0.19	81	0.00	80	0.05	52	0.05	51	0.07	66	0.06
Blet 2003		47	0.30	63	0.00	46	0.04	56	0.04	46	0.09	65	0.06
Block 1995		21	0.37	25	0.00	15	0.12	18	0.47	31	0.41	15	0.44
Blumental 1952		32	0.34	31	0.00	23	0.07	24	0.36	22	0.50	17	0.42
Boshniakovich 1969		87	0.12	88	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.03	91	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		46	0.31	43	0.00	52	0.06	46	0.06	31	0.40	40	0.15
Bunin 1987		40	0.33	22	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	39	0.17	45	0.14
Bunin 1987b		35	0.34	20	0.01	43	0.06	41	0.13	39	0.18	41	0.15
Chiu 1999		11	0.41	24	0.00	16	0.15	15	0.51	38	0.26	22	0.36
Cohen 1997		56	0.28	83	0.00	63	0.04	57	0.04	39	0.25	57	0.10
Cortot 1951		72	0.24	53	0.00	75	0.04	77	0.04	40	0.20	59	0.09
Csalog 1996		70	0.24	85	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	46	0.07	71	0.05
Czerny 1949		12	0.40	5	0.03	7	0.18	6	0.69	8	0.83	1	0.76
Czerny 1990		7	0.45	4	0.07	6	0.18	11	0.56	22	0.65	8	0.60
Duchoud 2007		18	0.39	33	0.00	22	0.06	20	0.41	30	0.35	19	0.38
Ezaki 2006		52	0.28	74	0.00	48	0.05	48	0.05	31	0.37	42	0.14
Falvay 1989		10	0.41	23	0.00	18	0.10	16	0.48	11	0.49	12	0.48
Farrell 1958		31	0.34	64	0.00	41	0.07	39	0.17	20	0.46	27	0.28
Ferenczy 1958		75	0.23	70	0.00	79	0.05	50	0.05	31	0.58	37	0.17
Fliere 1977		34	0.34	82	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	51	0.07	62	0.06
Fou 1978		16	0.39	29	0.00	20	0.10	17	0.47	30	0.36	18	0.41
Francois 1956		38	0.33	14	0.01	27	0.06	31	0.26	23	0.54	21	0.37
Friedman 1923		53	0.28	72	0.00	70	0.03	80	0.03	64	0.06	82	0.04
Friedman 1923b		55	0.28	79	0.00	71	0.04	54	0.04	60	0.06	75	0.05
Friedman 1930		54	0.28	89	0.00	67	0.04	61	0.04	60	0.06	72	0.05
Garcia 2007		67	0.26	58	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	54	0.06	74	0.05
Garcia 2007b		85	0.16	90	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	53	0.07	76	0.05
Gierzod 1998		82	0.19	34	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	54	0.06	73	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		62	0.27	39	0.00	28	0.06	40	0.17	34	0.35	29	0.24
Groot 1988		19	0.39	6	0.02	11	0.14	14	0.52	32	0.25	23	0.36
Harasiewicz 1955		2	0.50	3	0.08	2	0.42	2	0.77	5	0.67	4	0.72
Hatto 1993		22	0.37	46	0.00	21	0.07	25	0.36	52	0.09	36	0.18
Hatto 1997		44	0.32	40	0.00	35	0.09	33	0.25	44	0.13	35	0.18
Horowitz 1949		28	0.35	18	0.01	39	0.07	36	0.19	44	0.17	34	0.18
Indjic 1988		33	0.34	67	0.00	34	0.10	29	0.28	60	0.06	48	0.13
Kapell 1951		41	0.33	47	0.00	53	0.05	51	0.05	67	0.05	69	0.05
Kissin 1993		23	0.36	77	0.00	32	0.08	28	0.32	36	0.43	20	0.37
Kushner 1989		17	0.39	9	0.01	25	0.06	23	0.36	34	0.28	25	0.32
Luisada 1991		25	0.35	50	0.00	40	0.07	35	0.21	53	0.07	51	0.12
Lushtak 2004		76	0.21	45	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.04	87	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		39	0.33	28	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	45	0.10	56	0.10
Magaloff 1978		79	0.20	75	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	62	0.05	77	0.04
Magin 1975		63	0.27	60	0.00	57	0.04	64	0.04	53	0.08	63	0.06
Michalowski 1933		36	0.34	36	0.00	36	0.08	32	0.25	41	0.22	31	0.23
Milkina 1970		13	0.40	26	0.00	8	0.14	8	0.65	5	0.70	5	0.67
Mohovich 1999		78	0.20	76	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	67	0.04	88	0.03
Moravec 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Morozova 2008		30	0.35	48	0.00	31	0.09	26	0.33	37	0.18	28	0.24
Neighaus 1950		29	0.35	13	0.01	12	0.10	13	0.52	37	0.23	24	0.35
Niedzielski 1931		26	0.35	7	0.02	33	0.09	30	0.28	44	0.14	33	0.20
Ohlsson 1999		15	0.39	19	0.01	14	0.11	10	0.59	21	0.42	11	0.50
Osinska 1989		66	0.26	91	0.00	65	0.04	76	0.04	43	0.11	61	0.07
Pachmann 1927		84	0.19	84	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.04	84	0.03
Paderewski 1930		71	0.24	54	0.00	60	0.04	58	0.04	49	0.07	70	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		69	0.25	61	0.00	64	0.03	79	0.03	69	0.04	83	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		45	0.31	32	0.00	24	0.07	34	0.22	24	0.37	26	0.29
Poblocka 1999		58	0.28	51	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	47	0.06	68	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		74	0.23	52	0.00	68	0.04	74	0.04	35	0.29	53	0.11
Rachmaninoff 1923		3	0.48	2	0.09	3	0.20	5	0.70	7	0.74	3	0.72
Rangell 2001		49	0.30	35	0.00	59	0.04	69	0.04	53	0.05	81	0.04
Richter 1976		27	0.35	65	0.00	50	0.05	47	0.05	51	0.07	64	0.06
Rosen 1989		61	0.27	17	0.01	26	0.06	38	0.18	43	0.14	39	0.16
Rosenthal 1930		14	0.40	8	0.02	19	0.10	21	0.38	15	0.56	14	0.46
Rosenthal 1931		64	0.27	37	0.00	56	0.04	73	0.04	30	0.50	44	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		59	0.28	80	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	31	0.45	49	0.13
Rosenthal 1931c		43	0.33	78	0.00	47	0.04	55	0.04	24	0.48	47	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		57	0.28	68	0.00	55	0.04	59	0.04	20	0.46	46	0.14
Rossi 2007		91	-0.04	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	69	0.04	90	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		5	0.48	12	0.01	5	0.16	3	0.76	2	0.74	2	0.75
Rubinstein 1952		48	0.30	42	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.12	40	0.14	50	0.13
Rubinstein 1966		24	0.36	21	0.00	29	0.06	27	0.33	37	0.15	32	0.22
Schilhawsky 1960		86	0.15	55	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	53	0.05	86	0.03
Shebanova 2002		20	0.38	66	0.00	30	0.07	22	0.38	57	0.08	38	0.17
Smith 1975		65	0.26	15	0.01	37	0.07	43	0.12	25	0.44	30	0.23
Sokolov 2002		51	0.29	38	0.00	51	0.05	49	0.05	33	0.30	52	0.12
Sztompka 1959		8	0.45	59	0.00	9	0.21	9	0.65	19	0.53	9	0.59
Tomsic 1995		42	0.33	16	0.01	38	0.06	37	0.19	42	0.10	43	0.14
Uninsky 1932		9	0.41	30	0.00	13	0.10	12	0.53	32	0.33	16	0.42
Uninsky 1971		60	0.27	49	0.00	54	0.04	60	0.04	72	0.04	80	0.04
Wasowski 1980		6	0.46	27	0.00	10	0.14	7	0.68	24	0.55	7	0.61
Zak 1937		80	0.20	69	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	51	0.07	78	0.04
Zak 1951		81	0.20	87	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	61	0.05	79	0.04
Average		1	0.58	1	0.51	1	0.51	1	0.86	27	0.35	10	0.55
Random 1		89	0.00	71	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	21	0.32	60	0.08
Random 2		88	0.08	56	0.00	88	0.02	85	0.02	13	0.44	58	0.09
Random 3		90	-0.02	62	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	42	0.11	89	0.03

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).