Rabcewiczowa 1932

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		22	0.35	16	0.00	13	0.16	20	0.65	19	0.49	17	0.56
Anderszewski 2003		53	0.21	61	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.18	45	0.10	37	0.13
Ashkenazy 1981		83	0.08	54	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03	81	0.03
Bacha 2000		52	0.21	66	0.00	60	0.06	58	0.06	74	0.03	60	0.04
Badura 1965		75	0.11	49	0.00	61	0.06	55	0.06	62	0.04	57	0.05
Barbosa 1983		43	0.23	67	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.21	52	0.06	41	0.11
Biret 1990		12	0.42	15	0.01	22	0.19	26	0.52	20	0.57	19	0.54
Blet 2003		71	0.12	65	0.00	50	0.09	47	0.09	76	0.03	56	0.05
Block 1995		28	0.28	32	0.00	34	0.09	32	0.35	55	0.05	38	0.13
Blumental 1952		73	0.12	59	0.00	65	0.06	56	0.06	85	0.03	65	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		48	0.22	40	0.00	48	0.08	50	0.08	77	0.03	58	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		36	0.26	55	0.00	31	0.11	31	0.38	38	0.24	28	0.30
Bunin 1987		58	0.18	29	0.00	56	0.05	61	0.05	76	0.04	66	0.04
Bunin 1987b		59	0.18	68	0.00	57	0.06	59	0.06	77	0.04	54	0.05
Chiu 1999		56	0.19	46	0.00	78	0.04	68	0.04	85	0.03	68	0.03
Cohen 1997		4	0.49	3	0.05	4	0.22	3	0.81	4	0.71	4	0.76
Cortot 1951		15	0.40	13	0.01	18	0.14	18	0.68	9	0.65	12	0.66
Csalog 1996		66	0.16	82	0.00	74	0.03	71	0.03	74	0.04	79	0.03
Czerny 1949		2	0.52	8	0.02	2	0.17	2	0.81	6	0.84	2	0.82
Czerny 1990		61	0.18	41	0.00	63	0.07	52	0.07	67	0.04	59	0.05
Duchoud 2007		50	0.22	69	0.00	59	0.05	65	0.05	79	0.03	64	0.04
Ezaki 2006		6	0.46	2	0.12	3	0.20	11	0.74	8	0.68	9	0.71
Falvay 1989		31	0.27	62	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.15	58	0.05	44	0.09
Farrell 1958		30	0.27	76	0.00	32	0.12	30	0.38	42	0.13	30	0.22
Ferenczy 1958		17	0.36	22	0.00	17	0.13	14	0.71	8	0.82	3	0.76
Fliere 1977		68	0.14	63	0.00	77	0.03	72	0.03	83	0.03	67	0.03
Fou 1978		49	0.22	70	0.00	41	0.06	45	0.13	87	0.02	53	0.05
Francois 1956		9	0.44	5	0.02	6	0.18	9	0.75	6	0.75	7	0.75
Friedman 1923		86	0.02	77	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	82	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1923b		87	0.02	78	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	83	0.03	88	0.02
Friedman 1930		72	0.12	64	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.02	87	0.02
Garcia 2007		57	0.19	73	0.00	49	0.10	46	0.10	75	0.04	50	0.06
Garcia 2007b		79	0.10	83	0.00	80	0.02	83	0.02	80	0.03	89	0.02
Gierzod 1998		51	0.21	79	0.00	35	0.08	34	0.33	44	0.14	31	0.21
Gornostaeva 1994		1	0.62	1	0.57	1	0.57	1	0.90	2	0.84	1	0.87
Groot 1988		40	0.24	34	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.14	76	0.04	47	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		20	0.36	4	0.04	12	0.12	19	0.65	26	0.37	24	0.49
Hatto 1993		69	0.13	84	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.04	82	0.03
Hatto 1997		18	0.36	48	0.00	24	0.16	23	0.59	38	0.19	26	0.33
Horowitz 1949		64	0.17	85	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.04	74	0.03
Indjic 1988		81	0.09	86	0.00	81	0.04	69	0.04	85	0.03	78	0.03
Kapell 1951		63	0.17	74	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.04	62	0.04
Kissin 1993		90	-0.05	27	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.02
Kushner 1989		60	0.18	56	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	87	0.02	70	0.03
Luisada 1991		55	0.20	87	0.00	62	0.06	54	0.06	72	0.04	51	0.05
Lushtak 2004		39	0.25	88	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.17	46	0.07	42	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		74	0.12	71	0.00	58	0.05	64	0.05	85	0.02	72	0.03
Magaloff 1978		26	0.31	7	0.02	30	0.12	37	0.26	56	0.05	40	0.11
Magin 1975		88	0.02	89	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.02	83	0.02
Michalowski 1933		67	0.15	80	0.00	69	0.03	73	0.03	77	0.04	77	0.03
Milkina 1970		24	0.31	18	0.00	20	0.19	17	0.68	15	0.57	14	0.62
Mohovich 1999		10	0.43	14	0.01	7	0.13	7	0.76	11	0.61	11	0.68
Moravec 1969		45	0.23	38	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.29	74	0.04	39	0.11
Morozova 2008		41	0.24	75	0.00	47	0.08	48	0.08	64	0.05	49	0.06
Neighaus 1950		8	0.45	6	0.02	8	0.13	10	0.74	18	0.43	18	0.56
Niedzielski 1931		80	0.10	72	0.00	71	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03	69	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.25	28	0.00	52	0.07	51	0.07	85	0.03	55	0.05
Osinska 1989		5	0.48	10	0.02	10	0.14	4	0.79	10	0.72	5	0.75
Pachmann 1927		65	0.16	37	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.03
Paderewski 1930		84	0.07	90	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	87	0.02	75	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.26	45	0.00	36	0.07	39	0.21	50	0.05	43	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		42	0.24	42	0.00	55	0.05	62	0.05	73	0.03	61	0.04
Poblocka 1999		46	0.23	39	0.00	46	0.07	53	0.07	63	0.05	48	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rachmaninoff 1923		34	0.26	50	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.22	76	0.03	45	0.08
Rangell 2001		27	0.31	20	0.00	21	0.20	21	0.64	19	0.39	23	0.50
Richter 1976		70	0.13	57	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	83	0.03	84	0.02
Rosen 1989		21	0.36	30	0.00	23	0.18	22	0.61	40	0.18	27	0.33
Rosenthal 1930		13	0.41	11	0.02	11	0.15	5	0.79	7	0.72	6	0.75
Rosenthal 1931		47	0.23	47	0.00	27	0.16	27	0.49	24	0.57	20	0.53
Rosenthal 1931b		35	0.26	51	0.00	26	0.18	25	0.54	18	0.62	16	0.58
Rosenthal 1931c		23	0.33	17	0.00	25	0.15	24	0.56	21	0.50	21	0.53
Rosenthal 1931d		25	0.31	9	0.02	16	0.14	15	0.70	6	0.72	10	0.71
Rossi 2007		32	0.27	12	0.01	51	0.08	49	0.08	25	0.26	35	0.14
Rubinstein 1939		29	0.28	21	0.00	29	0.13	29	0.40	34	0.18	29	0.27
Rubinstein 1952		16	0.38	23	0.00	14	0.19	12	0.73	13	0.57	13	0.65
Rubinstein 1966		14	0.41	60	0.00	9	0.13	13	0.72	16	0.46	15	0.58
Schilhawsky 1960		82	0.09	43	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02
Shebanova 2002		76	0.11	44	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03
Smith 1975		3	0.51	31	0.00	5	0.18	6	0.77	9	0.70	8	0.73
Sokolov 2002		19	0.36	24	0.00	28	0.12	28	0.49	31	0.33	25	0.40
Sztompka 1959		33	0.26	19	0.00	33	0.08	33	0.33	52	0.07	33	0.15
Tomsic 1995		44	0.23	33	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.28	46	0.06	36	0.13
Uninsky 1932		54	0.20	58	0.00	53	0.05	63	0.05	80	0.03	63	0.04
Uninsky 1971		11	0.42	26	0.00	19	0.15	16	0.69	23	0.37	22	0.51
Wasowski 1980		62	0.17	91	0.00	64	0.05	60	0.05	75	0.05	52	0.05
Zak 1937		78	0.11	81	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.03
Zak 1951		77	0.11	52	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.03
Average		7	0.46	35	0.00	15	0.14	8	0.75	87	0.03	34	0.15
Random 1		91	-0.09	53	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		85	0.06	25	0.00	54	0.06	57	0.06	16	0.42	32	0.16
Random 3		89	0.01	36	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	25	0.28	46	0.07

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).