Bacha 2000

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