Block 1995

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		50	0.41	75	0.00	77	0.03	70	0.03	64	0.04	78	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		36	0.45	61	0.00	26	0.06	33	0.20	33	0.23	26	0.21
Ashkenazy 1981		26	0.48	43	0.00	30	0.06	25	0.29	57	0.05	38	0.12
Bacha 2000		35	0.45	71	0.00	39	0.08	34	0.18	32	0.30	24	0.23
Badura 1965		76	0.34	46	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.03	81	0.03
Barbosa 1983		79	0.27	19	0.01	70	0.03	77	0.03	67	0.04	73	0.03
Biret 1990		69	0.36	72	0.00	84	0.04	57	0.04	82	0.03	84	0.03
Blet 2003		44	0.43	78	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.11	53	0.05	51	0.07
Block 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blumental 1952		81	0.24	11	0.01	33	0.06	40	0.14	51	0.05	49	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		3	0.64	2	0.22	2	0.34	1	0.80	2	0.77	1	0.78
Brailowsky 1960		18	0.55	8	0.03	14	0.08	18	0.36	20	0.39	12	0.37
Bunin 1987		71	0.36	79	0.00	80	0.02	88	0.02	76	0.03	91	0.02
Bunin 1987b		72	0.36	80	0.00	81	0.03	69	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.03
Chiu 1999		74	0.34	38	0.00	65	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.03	68	0.03
Cohen 1997		75	0.34	29	0.00	29	0.08	35	0.18	35	0.19	29	0.18
Cortot 1951		37	0.44	28	0.00	41	0.04	44	0.10	29	0.27	34	0.16
Csalog 1996		77	0.31	18	0.01	87	0.02	84	0.02	66	0.04	74	0.03
Czerny 1949		78	0.31	81	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03
Czerny 1990		32	0.47	62	0.00	60	0.04	59	0.04	70	0.04	65	0.04
Duchoud 2007		73	0.35	82	0.00	82	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03
Ezaki 2006		41	0.44	76	0.00	58	0.03	74	0.03	72	0.03	67	0.03
Falvay 1989		28	0.48	83	0.00	46	0.04	48	0.04	79	0.03	69	0.03
Farrell 1958		58	0.40	58	0.00	43	0.04	41	0.11	30	0.27	30	0.17
Ferenczy 1958		68	0.37	39	0.00	83	0.03	73	0.03	58	0.04	76	0.03
Fliere 1977		12	0.59	25	0.00	16	0.10	6	0.55	30	0.23	14	0.36
Fou 1978		16	0.55	13	0.01	17	0.08	13	0.44	31	0.31	13	0.37
Francois 1956		45	0.42	52	0.00	62	0.04	53	0.04	75	0.03	86	0.03
Friedman 1923		84	0.17	32	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	33	0.17	52	0.07
Friedman 1923b		83	0.18	30	0.00	73	0.02	86	0.02	36	0.16	54	0.06
Friedman 1930		80	0.25	65	0.00	71	0.02	83	0.02	66	0.04	75	0.03
Garcia 2007		39	0.44	40	0.00	32	0.06	22	0.33	1	0.78	4	0.51
Garcia 2007b		82	0.21	63	0.00	64	0.03	68	0.03	16	0.40	40	0.11
Gierzod 1998		47	0.42	36	0.00	50	0.04	55	0.04	74	0.03	79	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		9	0.60	41	0.00	10	0.12	12	0.44	25	0.32	11	0.38
Groot 1988		10	0.60	77	0.00	15	0.08	17	0.41	32	0.24	19	0.31
Harasiewicz 1955		19	0.54	12	0.01	4	0.16	4	0.60	17	0.37	6	0.47
Hatto 1993		85	0.15	86	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1997		88	0.11	84	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.03	89	0.02
Horowitz 1949		40	0.44	17	0.01	44	0.05	45	0.10	51	0.05	50	0.07
Indjic 1988		86	0.13	87	0.00	85	0.03	71	0.03	87	0.02	88	0.02
Kapell 1951		48	0.41	73	0.00	72	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.03
Kissin 1993		7	0.61	24	0.00	11	0.11	15	0.41	27	0.31	15	0.36
Kushner 1989		5	0.62	14	0.01	6	0.15	5	0.60	11	0.48	3	0.54
Luisada 1991		27	0.48	48	0.00	34	0.06	29	0.24	39	0.16	27	0.20
Lushtak 2004		62	0.38	66	0.00	59	0.04	54	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.63	27	0.00	9	0.11	8	0.54	35	0.23	16	0.35
Magaloff 1978		1	0.67	1	0.24	1	0.23	9	0.49	11	0.40	7	0.44
Magin 1975		25	0.50	54	0.00	24	0.07	26	0.29	18	0.28	20	0.28
Michalowski 1933		70	0.36	33	0.00	27	0.06	30	0.24	47	0.06	36	0.12
Milkina 1970		24	0.50	67	0.00	35	0.06	28	0.24	40	0.17	28	0.20
Mohovich 1999		11	0.59	44	0.00	18	0.10	10	0.46	26	0.31	10	0.38
Moravec 1969		34	0.46	31	0.00	47	0.04	50	0.04	61	0.04	55	0.04
Morozova 2008		51	0.41	20	0.01	40	0.06	37	0.16	57	0.04	48	0.08
Neighaus 1950		17	0.55	7	0.03	8	0.10	7	0.54	34	0.21	18	0.34
Niedzielski 1931		52	0.40	34	0.00	51	0.04	56	0.04	20	0.29	39	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		60	0.39	55	0.00	78	0.03	75	0.03	78	0.03	72	0.03
Osinska 1989		15	0.56	15	0.01	23	0.08	20	0.34	27	0.22	21	0.27
Pachmann 1927		54	0.40	35	0.00	54	0.04	52	0.04	38	0.16	45	0.08
Paderewski 1930		14	0.58	6	0.04	13	0.12	14	0.44	9	0.51	5	0.47
Perlemuter 1992		6	0.62	3	0.16	3	0.23	2	0.70	3	0.67	2	0.68
Pierdomenico 2008		29	0.48	16	0.01	37	0.10	31	0.23	22	0.25	23	0.24
Poblocka 1999		31	0.48	23	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.17	55	0.05	43	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.40	45	0.00	69	0.04	61	0.04	50	0.05	58	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		65	0.38	64	0.00	49	0.05	46	0.05	66	0.04	57	0.04
Rangell 2001		20	0.54	26	0.00	19	0.09	21	0.33	36	0.19	22	0.25
Richter 1976		13	0.58	10	0.01	21	0.08	19	0.36	22	0.33	17	0.34
Rosen 1989		8	0.60	9	0.02	12	0.09	16	0.41	15	0.43	9	0.42
Rosenthal 1930		64	0.38	85	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	47	0.05	63	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		67	0.37	88	0.00	56	0.03	72	0.03	34	0.20	46	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		63	0.38	59	0.00	52	0.04	60	0.04	28	0.26	42	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		42	0.43	89	0.00	57	0.04	65	0.04	52	0.05	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		38	0.44	90	0.00	45	0.05	43	0.10	23	0.29	32	0.17
Rossi 2007		61	0.39	47	0.00	22	0.09	24	0.29	1	0.62	8	0.42
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.12	70	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	79	0.03	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		30	0.48	37	0.00	31	0.06	39	0.15	32	0.19	33	0.17
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.41	60	0.00	53	0.04	63	0.04	67	0.04	62	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		56	0.40	57	0.00	48	0.04	47	0.04	42	0.17	47	0.08
Shebanova 2002		23	0.52	42	0.00	28	0.06	23	0.31	68	0.05	37	0.12
Smith 1975		22	0.52	50	0.00	20	0.09	11	0.46	58	0.04	35	0.14
Sokolov 2002		33	0.46	53	0.00	25	0.06	38	0.16	64	0.04	44	0.08
Sztompka 1959		43	0.43	5	0.05	7	0.10	32	0.20	36	0.22	25	0.21
Tomsic 1995		21	0.52	56	0.00	36	0.08	27	0.26	66	0.04	41	0.10
Uninsky 1932		66	0.37	22	0.00	55	0.03	67	0.03	42	0.11	53	0.06
Uninsky 1971		53	0.40	21	0.00	66	0.04	58	0.04	57	0.04	61	0.04
Wasowski 1980		55	0.40	91	0.00	68	0.03	66	0.03	59	0.05	56	0.04
Zak 1937		57	0.40	51	0.00	63	0.04	49	0.04	71	0.04	59	0.04
Zak 1951		46	0.42	74	0.00	61	0.04	51	0.04	52	0.05	60	0.04
Average		2	0.65	4	0.05	5	0.17	3	0.69	62	0.04	31	0.17
Random 1		90	-0.04	49	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	37	0.12	82	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.06	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	68	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	0.03	69	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	48	0.05	83	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).