Afanassiev 2001

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		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Anderszewski 2003		75	0.34	66	0.00	61	0.04	62	0.04	57	0.03	82	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		61	0.43	73	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	65	0.04	72	0.04
Bacha 2000		57	0.46	25	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	46	0.06	65	0.04
Badura 1965		34	0.55	30	0.00	19	0.10	17	0.41	2	0.64	5	0.51
Barbosa 1983		18	0.60	39	0.00	15	0.09	15	0.43	9	0.54	11	0.48
Biret 1990		33	0.55	46	0.00	48	0.04	59	0.04	31	0.24	47	0.10
Blet 2003		10	0.64	20	0.01	18	0.10	18	0.39	7	0.46	18	0.42
Block 1995		67	0.41	88	0.00	85	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.03	84	0.03
Blumental 1952		72	0.35	64	0.00	55	0.05	50	0.05	33	0.20	46	0.10
Boshniakovich 1969		58	0.45	70	0.00	69	0.02	81	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		52	0.48	12	0.01	65	0.03	70	0.03	64	0.04	73	0.03
Bunin 1987		39	0.53	58	0.00	53	0.11	42	0.11	41	0.14	41	0.12
Bunin 1987b		38	0.54	37	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	41	0.14	48	0.09
Chiu 1999		53	0.47	23	0.01	49	0.05	54	0.05	35	0.24	43	0.11
Cohen 1997		83	0.23	36	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	76	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		56	0.46	81	0.00	59	0.05	51	0.05	43	0.11	58	0.07
Csalog 1996		50	0.50	48	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	39	0.21	49	0.09
Czerny 1949		7	0.66	18	0.01	4	0.16	3	0.58	7	0.67	2	0.62
Czerny 1990		9	0.65	60	0.00	6	0.09	7	0.51	13	0.50	8	0.50
Duchoud 2007		32	0.55	71	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.17	34	0.26	35	0.21
Ezaki 2006		1	0.75	1	0.53	1	0.52	1	0.75	3	0.68	1	0.71
Falvay 1989		11	0.64	9	0.02	20	0.13	21	0.37	12	0.41	20	0.39
Farrell 1958		54	0.47	27	0.00	66	0.03	71	0.03	46	0.05	67	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		36	0.54	19	0.01	41	0.04	46	0.08	17	0.41	37	0.18
Fliere 1977		24	0.58	68	0.00	44	0.05	39	0.12	62	0.04	55	0.07
Fou 1978		35	0.55	29	0.00	26	0.06	26	0.20	37	0.22	31	0.21
Francois 1956		3	0.67	21	0.01	5	0.13	5	0.54	10	0.53	4	0.53
Friedman 1923		86	0.20	43	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	32	0.21	63	0.06
Friedman 1923b		85	0.20	42	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	32	0.20	62	0.06
Friedman 1930		84	0.23	89	0.00	80	0.02	86	0.02	74	0.03	88	0.02
Garcia 2007		87	0.19	72	0.00	77	0.02	85	0.02	64	0.04	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		88	0.13	44	0.00	87	0.03	75	0.03	56	0.04	87	0.03
Gierzod 1998		37	0.54	26	0.00	23	0.09	23	0.29	21	0.28	23	0.28
Gornostaeva 1994		12	0.64	6	0.03	8	0.12	16	0.43	19	0.40	19	0.41
Groot 1988		5	0.67	2	0.06	13	0.11	8	0.50	18	0.41	14	0.45
Harasiewicz 1955		59	0.45	61	0.00	38	0.04	34	0.16	55	0.04	53	0.08
Hatto 1993		80	0.25	49	0.00	37	0.05	43	0.10	45	0.09	50	0.09
Hatto 1997		70	0.37	4	0.03	24	0.11	24	0.25	34	0.20	30	0.22
Horowitz 1949		69	0.39	90	0.00	67	0.03	74	0.03	55	0.05	68	0.04
Indjic 1988		78	0.27	55	0.00	40	0.05	45	0.09	52	0.05	57	0.07
Kapell 1951		30	0.56	41	0.00	50	0.05	52	0.05	38	0.22	44	0.10
Kissin 1993		29	0.56	78	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.12	43	0.18	39	0.15
Kushner 1989		23	0.59	84	0.00	34	0.05	30	0.17	30	0.25	32	0.21
Luisada 1991		55	0.47	51	0.00	39	0.05	37	0.13	52	0.05	51	0.08
Lushtak 2004		47	0.50	85	0.00	46	0.04	60	0.04	54	0.05	71	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.67	14	0.01	10	0.10	11	0.47	17	0.40	17	0.43
Magaloff 1978		49	0.50	38	0.00	57	0.05	56	0.05	88	0.02	74	0.03
Magin 1975		74	0.34	79	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	62	0.04	78	0.03
Michalowski 1933		82	0.24	53	0.00	71	0.02	82	0.02	58	0.05	81	0.03
Milkina 1970		21	0.59	59	0.00	28	0.05	27	0.19	32	0.24	33	0.21
Mohovich 1999		8	0.65	5	0.03	12	0.11	4	0.56	12	0.54	3	0.55
Moravec 1969		22	0.59	28	0.00	36	0.05	35	0.16	22	0.32	28	0.23
Morozova 2008		19	0.60	3	0.05	3	0.15	10	0.47	6	0.48	12	0.47
Neighaus 1950		16	0.61	22	0.01	9	0.12	12	0.47	22	0.42	16	0.44
Niedzielski 1931		71	0.37	86	0.00	74	0.03	67	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		31	0.56	76	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.10	54	0.05	56	0.07
Osinska 1989		28	0.57	50	0.00	42	0.04	41	0.11	30	0.21	38	0.15
Pachmann 1927		65	0.43	17	0.01	63	0.04	66	0.04	33	0.24	45	0.10
Paderewski 1930		66	0.42	77	0.00	68	0.04	63	0.04	75	0.03	80	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		41	0.53	63	0.00	47	0.05	58	0.05	46	0.08	59	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		68	0.40	65	0.00	75	0.03	69	0.03	61	0.04	75	0.03
Poblocka 1999		15	0.62	15	0.01	17	0.09	22	0.30	23	0.30	22	0.30
Rabcewiczowa 1932		27	0.57	31	0.00	21	0.08	19	0.38	9	0.62	9	0.49
Rachmaninoff 1923		43	0.52	33	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.18	27	0.28	29	0.22
Rangell 2001		46	0.52	16	0.01	51	0.06	47	0.06	24	0.29	40	0.13
Richter 1976		62	0.43	91	0.00	73	0.03	72	0.03	64	0.03	79	0.03
Rosen 1989		25	0.58	10	0.02	7	0.08	14	0.45	13	0.47	13	0.46
Rosenthal 1930		51	0.49	13	0.01	27	0.06	33	0.16	19	0.50	24	0.28
Rosenthal 1931		73	0.35	56	0.00	76	0.03	68	0.03	33	0.21	52	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.30	67	0.00	79	0.02	83	0.02	45	0.11	64	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		64	0.43	69	0.00	58	0.05	53	0.05	30	0.28	42	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.33	35	0.00	83	0.02	80	0.02	54	0.04	86	0.03
Rossi 2007		81	0.25	82	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	36	0.16	60	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		79	0.25	34	0.00	88	0.03	79	0.03	71	0.03	76	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		48	0.50	32	0.00	60	0.05	57	0.05	42	0.13	54	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		26	0.58	45	0.00	30	0.05	31	0.17	20	0.41	25	0.26
Schilhawsky 1960		60	0.44	87	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	55	0.05	69	0.04
Shebanova 2002		44	0.52	80	0.00	54	0.06	48	0.06	58	0.06	61	0.06
Smith 1975		20	0.60	74	0.00	22	0.09	20	0.37	32	0.26	21	0.31
Sokolov 2002		17	0.61	52	0.00	31	0.05	25	0.21	33	0.28	27	0.24
Sztompka 1959		14	0.62	40	0.00	16	0.09	13	0.46	8	0.50	10	0.48
Tomsic 1995		6	0.66	57	0.00	11	0.11	6	0.52	10	0.49	6	0.50
Uninsky 1932		42	0.53	24	0.01	35	0.05	36	0.14	20	0.32	34	0.21
Uninsky 1971		13	0.63	7	0.02	14	0.14	9	0.50	10	0.51	7	0.50
Wasowski 1980		63	0.43	54	0.00	72	0.03	77	0.03	57	0.05	66	0.04
Zak 1937		45	0.52	47	0.00	29	0.05	38	0.13	30	0.29	36	0.19
Zak 1951		40	0.53	8	0.02	25	0.08	28	0.19	25	0.33	26	0.25
Average		2	0.75	11	0.02	2	0.36	2	0.71	31	0.27	15	0.44
Random 1		91	-0.06	62	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	77	0.03	89	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.02	75	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	44	0.10	70	0.04
Random 3		90	-0.02	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	50	0.04	91	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).