Czerny 1990

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		10	0.65	28	0.00	14	0.13	13	0.50	7	0.51	13	0.50
Anderszewski 2003		64	0.45	57	0.00	49	0.07	46	0.07	29	0.24	51	0.13
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.64	4	0.03	4	0.10	2	0.66	11	0.50	6	0.57
Bacha 2000		77	0.34	74	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	67	0.03	80	0.03
Badura 1965		54	0.49	69	0.00	57	0.05	61	0.05	22	0.37	49	0.14
Barbosa 1983		57	0.48	19	0.01	51	0.06	50	0.06	40	0.23	52	0.12
Biret 1990		45	0.51	39	0.00	69	0.04	74	0.04	75	0.04	77	0.04
Blet 2003		23	0.61	63	0.00	31	0.07	21	0.31	19	0.40	22	0.35
Block 1995		59	0.47	61	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.04	76	0.04
Blumental 1952		61	0.47	51	0.00	34	0.06	36	0.18	8	0.46	30	0.29
Boshniakovich 1969		55	0.49	83	0.00	74	0.03	84	0.03	54	0.04	84	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.40	48	0.00	81	0.03	76	0.03	46	0.06	71	0.04
Bunin 1987		30	0.58	35	0.00	36	0.07	30	0.23	21	0.36	31	0.29
Bunin 1987b		28	0.58	22	0.00	35	0.07	29	0.24	21	0.37	27	0.30
Chiu 1999		50	0.50	18	0.01	27	0.05	34	0.21	19	0.48	23	0.32
Cohen 1997		88	0.16	52	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	78	0.03	89	0.02
Cortot 1951		66	0.45	87	0.00	73	0.05	52	0.05	47	0.08	67	0.06
Csalog 1996		73	0.37	32	0.00	82	0.04	69	0.04	52	0.06	69	0.05
Czerny 1949		7	0.69	33	0.00	11	0.07	8	0.54	11	0.64	3	0.59
Czerny 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Duchoud 2007		24	0.60	23	0.00	22	0.06	19	0.35	11	0.49	18	0.41
Ezaki 2006		17	0.62	42	0.00	26	0.06	23	0.30	25	0.30	25	0.30
Falvay 1989		31	0.58	54	0.00	52	0.05	60	0.05	34	0.19	54	0.10
Farrell 1958		69	0.43	62	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	73	0.03	81	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		70	0.42	78	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	41	0.13	64	0.07
Fliere 1977		5	0.70	7	0.03	8	0.09	4	0.61	13	0.56	5	0.58
Fou 1978		51	0.50	16	0.01	28	0.07	38	0.16	42	0.17	43	0.16
Francois 1956		19	0.62	70	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.25	22	0.35	28	0.30
Friedman 1923		85	0.23	53	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	11	0.45	47	0.15
Friedman 1923b		84	0.23	41	0.00	55	0.05	63	0.05	13	0.46	46	0.15
Friedman 1930		72	0.40	27	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	19	0.47	37	0.25
Garcia 2007		80	0.29	67	0.00	76	0.03	85	0.03	32	0.21	61	0.08
Garcia 2007b		83	0.25	58	0.00	78	0.04	67	0.04	37	0.22	59	0.09
Gierzod 1998		58	0.47	30	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	36	0.15	57	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		20	0.61	17	0.01	23	0.07	27	0.25	35	0.21	39	0.23
Groot 1988		8	0.66	29	0.00	17	0.07	12	0.50	9	0.50	14	0.50
Harasiewicz 1955		52	0.50	44	0.00	30	0.06	24	0.28	32	0.24	36	0.26
Hatto 1993		75	0.36	9	0.02	40	0.05	40	0.14	19	0.33	41	0.21
Hatto 1997		76	0.36	84	0.00	50	0.06	51	0.06	44	0.09	63	0.07
Horowitz 1949		27	0.58	21	0.00	18	0.07	22	0.30	12	0.40	21	0.35
Indjic 1988		74	0.37	25	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.11	24	0.28	42	0.18
Kapell 1951		6	0.70	12	0.01	7	0.12	7	0.58	3	0.55	8	0.56
Kissin 1993		15	0.63	20	0.00	20	0.07	16	0.40	17	0.43	17	0.41
Kushner 1989		4	0.70	36	0.00	12	0.09	10	0.52	8	0.60	7	0.56
Luisada 1991		35	0.57	34	0.00	29	0.08	32	0.22	19	0.35	32	0.28
Lushtak 2004		67	0.45	75	0.00	66	0.05	59	0.05	58	0.05	70	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.71	47	0.00	5	0.13	6	0.59	8	0.53	9	0.56
Magaloff 1978		38	0.56	88	0.00	46	0.05	64	0.05	66	0.03	72	0.04
Magin 1975		43	0.53	10	0.02	21	0.07	31	0.23	15	0.40	26	0.30
Michalowski 1933		63	0.45	55	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.14	16	0.42	38	0.24
Milkina 1970		47	0.51	79	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	64	0.04	74	0.04
Mohovich 1999		37	0.56	65	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	38	0.17	58	0.09
Moravec 1969		9	0.66	6	0.03	15	0.14	11	0.51	2	0.66	4	0.58
Morozova 2008		16	0.63	5	0.03	13	0.14	9	0.53	5	0.51	12	0.52
Neighaus 1950		40	0.55	71	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.22	45	0.11	45	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		46	0.51	11	0.01	41	0.05	43	0.12	11	0.42	40	0.22
Ohlsson 1999		32	0.58	72	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	32	0.20	50	0.13
Osinska 1989		39	0.55	37	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	40	0.12	60	0.08
Pachmann 1927		79	0.31	73	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	82	0.03
Paderewski 1930		41	0.54	85	0.00	61	0.05	58	0.05	44	0.11	62	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		34	0.57	56	0.00	32	0.09	26	0.25	14	0.49	20	0.35
Pierdomenico 2008		48	0.51	49	0.00	67	0.05	62	0.05	35	0.19	55	0.10
Poblocka 1999		14	0.63	13	0.01	9	0.09	15	0.45	11	0.44	15	0.44
Rabcewiczowa 1932		36	0.56	38	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	24	0.40	48	0.14
Rachmaninoff 1923		22	0.61	3	0.08	3	0.21	5	0.61	3	0.68	2	0.64
Rangell 2001		53	0.50	59	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	53	0.04	85	0.03
Richter 1976		29	0.58	15	0.01	37	0.07	28	0.24	13	0.39	24	0.31
Rosen 1989		42	0.53	26	0.00	25	0.06	35	0.19	22	0.37	34	0.27
Rosenthal 1930		44	0.52	43	0.00	59	0.06	49	0.06	24	0.44	44	0.16
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.25	80	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	62	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.22	81	0.00	86	0.03	81	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.44	40	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	46	0.06	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.28	45	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	81	0.02	90	0.02
Rossi 2007		78	0.32	89	0.00	83	0.03	75	0.03	27	0.26	56	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		86	0.23	46	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	72	0.03	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		65	0.45	76	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	56	0.06	79	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.50	60	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	43	0.10	65	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		56	0.48	77	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	30	0.27	53	0.12
Shebanova 2002		18	0.62	8	0.02	16	0.07	17	0.40	12	0.49	16	0.44
Smith 1975		33	0.57	90	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	54	0.04	68	0.05
Sokolov 2002		12	0.64	64	0.00	19	0.07	18	0.36	23	0.37	19	0.36
Sztompka 1959		2	0.74	2	0.25	2	0.35	3	0.65	2	0.69	1	0.67
Tomsic 1995		21	0.61	50	0.00	10	0.10	20	0.31	24	0.28	29	0.29
Uninsky 1932		11	0.65	31	0.00	6	0.13	14	0.49	4	0.58	11	0.53
Uninsky 1971		25	0.59	68	0.00	39	0.08	37	0.17	25	0.41	35	0.26
Wasowski 1980		26	0.59	14	0.01	38	0.07	39	0.16	8	0.45	33	0.27
Zak 1937		60	0.47	86	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.04	73	0.04
Zak 1951		62	0.46	82	0.00	62	0.04	66	0.04	56	0.05	75	0.04
Average		1	0.78	1	0.34	1	0.34	1	0.76	14	0.40	10	0.55
Random 1		91	-0.09	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.02	66	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	35	0.16	66	0.06
Random 3		90	0.02	24	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	59	0.03	88	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).