Paderewski 1930

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		70	0.19	85	0.00	71	0.05	70	0.05	77	0.03	74	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		67	0.19	23	0.00	57	0.06	66	0.06	55	0.05	65	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		6	0.51	15	0.01	10	0.18	8	0.72	26	0.59	10	0.65
Bacha 2000		55	0.24	42	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	40	0.19	47	0.12
Badura 1965		65	0.21	86	0.00	68	0.05	69	0.05	79	0.03	75	0.04
Barbosa 1983		42	0.31	43	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.28	33	0.32	31	0.30
Biret 1990		83	0.08	35	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	64	0.04	87	0.03
Blet 2003		8	0.49	5	0.04	8	0.16	9	0.71	5	0.69	5	0.70
Block 1995		4	0.54	2	0.17	2	0.34	3	0.80	5	0.74	2	0.77
Blumental 1952		48	0.26	55	0.00	58	0.06	57	0.06	71	0.04	69	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		20	0.43	7	0.02	14	0.16	17	0.61	21	0.51	15	0.56
Brailowsky 1960		88	0.01	72	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.03	89	0.02
Bunin 1987		58	0.23	14	0.01	49	0.06	60	0.06	49	0.07	58	0.06
Bunin 1987b		59	0.23	67	0.00	50	0.07	52	0.07	49	0.07	54	0.07
Chiu 1999		37	0.32	80	0.00	41	0.07	43	0.22	58	0.06	48	0.11
Cohen 1997		76	0.13	77	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		46	0.27	60	0.00	38	0.07	45	0.21	30	0.39	34	0.29
Csalog 1996		50	0.25	34	0.00	31	0.08	44	0.21	37	0.21	38	0.21
Czerny 1949		91	-0.09	73	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	82	0.02	91	0.01
Czerny 1990		43	0.28	78	0.00	51	0.06	59	0.06	54	0.07	59	0.06
Duchoud 2007		69	0.19	63	0.00	67	0.06	64	0.06	71	0.04	67	0.05
Ezaki 2006		77	0.11	68	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.03	79	0.03
Falvay 1989		73	0.16	64	0.00	69	0.06	65	0.06	77	0.03	71	0.04
Farrell 1958		87	0.02	27	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		90	-0.03	44	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	71	0.04	83	0.03
Fliere 1977		5	0.53	37	0.00	5	0.18	5	0.74	22	0.65	6	0.69
Fou 1978		51	0.25	24	0.00	52	0.07	50	0.07	74	0.03	63	0.05
Francois 1956		71	0.18	56	0.00	70	0.06	62	0.06	46	0.07	60	0.06
Friedman 1923		19	0.43	16	0.01	23	0.08	21	0.55	35	0.43	21	0.49
Friedman 1923b		18	0.43	36	0.00	24	0.15	23	0.54	37	0.44	20	0.49
Friedman 1930		14	0.47	9	0.01	13	0.16	15	0.63	17	0.62	11	0.62
Garcia 2007		32	0.36	8	0.02	15	0.13	25	0.50	18	0.48	19	0.49
Garcia 2007b		34	0.34	40	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.38	25	0.52	24	0.44
Gierzod 1998		66	0.20	65	0.00	55	0.05	67	0.05	46	0.08	57	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		74	0.14	58	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	67	0.04	86	0.03
Groot 1988		11	0.48	17	0.00	9	0.19	13	0.64	19	0.46	17	0.54
Harasiewicz 1955		26	0.38	66	0.00	40	0.07	37	0.32	58	0.05	46	0.13
Hatto 1993		13	0.47	6	0.03	11	0.22	7	0.72	20	0.52	13	0.61
Hatto 1997		44	0.28	38	0.00	44	0.08	42	0.23	37	0.20	39	0.21
Horowitz 1949		31	0.36	49	0.00	37	0.07	36	0.32	46	0.08	41	0.16
Indjic 1988		10	0.48	3	0.13	7	0.17	6	0.73	16	0.61	8	0.67
Kapell 1951		41	0.31	31	0.00	45	0.12	41	0.24	52	0.07	44	0.13
Kissin 1993		1	0.58	1	0.33	1	0.33	1	0.83	4	0.83	1	0.83
Kushner 1989		28	0.38	54	0.00	34	0.07	30	0.42	33	0.31	27	0.36
Luisada 1991		23	0.41	32	0.00	22	0.11	24	0.54	30	0.38	22	0.45
Lushtak 2004		52	0.25	28	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	27	0.23	45	0.13
Malcuzynski 1961		17	0.44	39	0.00	20	0.16	14	0.64	20	0.49	14	0.56
Magaloff 1978		22	0.41	29	0.00	18	0.11	19	0.60	18	0.51	16	0.55
Magin 1975		7	0.51	10	0.01	12	0.24	10	0.70	10	0.78	3	0.74
Michalowski 1933		24	0.41	25	0.00	32	0.09	28	0.43	38	0.28	28	0.35
Milkina 1970		78	0.11	47	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03
Mohovich 1999		36	0.33	48	0.00	36	0.08	35	0.34	32	0.27	32	0.30
Moravec 1969		56	0.24	87	0.00	59	0.07	49	0.07	58	0.04	61	0.05
Morozova 2008		53	0.25	33	0.00	60	0.06	56	0.06	74	0.04	66	0.05
Neighaus 1950		30	0.36	69	0.00	27	0.08	26	0.50	48	0.09	40	0.21
Niedzielski 1931		16	0.44	22	0.00	21	0.17	18	0.61	23	0.45	18	0.52
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.38	12	0.01	26	0.07	27	0.46	42	0.11	36	0.22
Osinska 1989		63	0.22	30	0.00	66	0.06	53	0.06	50	0.06	55	0.06
Pachmann 1927		15	0.46	21	0.00	19	0.14	12	0.65	14	0.70	7	0.67
Paderewski 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Perlemuter 1992		9	0.49	11	0.01	6	0.18	16	0.62	20	0.61	12	0.61
Pierdomenico 2008		40	0.31	41	0.00	30	0.07	34	0.35	26	0.37	26	0.36
Poblocka 1999		62	0.23	53	0.00	53	0.06	58	0.06	53	0.05	62	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		85	0.07	88	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	67	0.04	80	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		68	0.19	74	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	61	0.04	70	0.04
Rangell 2001		54	0.24	79	0.00	54	0.05	68	0.05	70	0.04	77	0.04
Richter 1976		12	0.48	61	0.00	16	0.12	11	0.65	29	0.65	9	0.65
Rosen 1989		45	0.27	70	0.00	48	0.06	54	0.06	63	0.04	68	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		72	0.16	81	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.07	89	0.00	81	0.04	75	0.04	54	0.05	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.10	75	0.00	79	0.04	76	0.04	54	0.05	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		49	0.26	82	0.00	56	0.06	61	0.06	33	0.31	43	0.14
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.10	90	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	75	0.03	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		75	0.13	71	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	22	0.32	50	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		82	0.10	83	0.00	87	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.02	90	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		29	0.37	51	0.00	29	0.06	29	0.43	32	0.33	25	0.38
Rubinstein 1966		39	0.32	59	0.00	43	0.09	40	0.26	66	0.05	49	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		47	0.26	19	0.00	61	0.06	55	0.06	45	0.12	51	0.08
Shebanova 2002		2	0.55	13	0.01	4	0.17	4	0.77	18	0.66	4	0.71
Smith 1975		64	0.22	45	0.00	65	0.07	47	0.07	47	0.07	53	0.07
Sokolov 2002		35	0.33	20	0.00	39	0.08	38	0.29	24	0.41	29	0.34
Sztompka 1959		21	0.41	18	0.00	17	0.10	20	0.56	35	0.34	23	0.44
Tomsic 1995		38	0.32	57	0.00	35	0.09	31	0.41	29	0.24	30	0.31
Uninsky 1932		25	0.40	62	0.00	25	0.11	22	0.55	44	0.15	33	0.29
Uninsky 1971		60	0.23	52	0.00	64	0.07	51	0.07	77	0.03	64	0.05
Wasowski 1980		33	0.34	26	0.00	28	0.08	33	0.36	45	0.16	35	0.24
Zak 1937		57	0.24	76	0.00	62	0.06	63	0.06	49	0.07	56	0.06
Zak 1951		61	0.23	84	0.00	63	0.05	71	0.05	69	0.04	72	0.04
Average		3	0.55	4	0.09	3	0.31	2	0.81	54	0.06	37	0.22
Random 1		79	0.11	50	0.00	77	0.04	74	0.04	5	0.54	42	0.15
Random 2		86	0.04	46	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	34	0.20	52	0.08
Random 3		89	0.00	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	35	0.16	76	0.04

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).