Kapell 1951

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		27	0.56	47	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.22	52	0.05	45	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		22	0.57	5	0.08	8	0.11	10	0.52	5	0.57	4	0.54
Ashkenazy 1981		18	0.61	26	0.01	17	0.10	11	0.49	14	0.46	17	0.47
Bacha 2000		60	0.45	33	0.00	61	0.04	67	0.04	44	0.12	50	0.07
Badura 1965		77	0.35	82	0.00	63	0.04	60	0.04	47	0.06	57	0.05
Barbosa 1983		41	0.52	53	0.00	32	0.08	35	0.29	20	0.44	31	0.36
Biret 1990		16	0.61	64	0.00	29	0.10	24	0.43	10	0.53	14	0.48
Blet 2003		20	0.60	29	0.00	26	0.12	21	0.44	6	0.47	23	0.45
Block 1995		67	0.41	72	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03	83	0.03
Blumental 1952		73	0.38	9	0.03	16	0.09	32	0.31	9	0.45	30	0.37
Boshniakovich 1969		72	0.40	70	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	64	0.03	84	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		70	0.40	62	0.00	81	0.04	70	0.04	62	0.04	59	0.04
Bunin 1987		9	0.65	23	0.01	13	0.10	6	0.53	7	0.53	6	0.53
Bunin 1987b		8	0.65	44	0.00	14	0.11	5	0.53	7	0.53	5	0.53
Chiu 1999		74	0.38	28	0.00	59	0.04	61	0.04	57	0.04	60	0.04
Cohen 1997		80	0.30	79	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	61	0.04	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		24	0.56	73	0.00	24	0.11	22	0.43	9	0.50	22	0.46
Csalog 1996		61	0.45	30	0.00	77	0.04	68	0.04	40	0.17	49	0.08
Czerny 1949		19	0.60	41	0.00	23	0.10	14	0.47	14	0.56	10	0.51
Czerny 1990		3	0.70	16	0.01	7	0.13	3	0.55	7	0.58	3	0.56
Duchoud 2007		6	0.66	34	0.00	22	0.12	15	0.46	13	0.47	20	0.46
Ezaki 2006		31	0.55	36	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.27	56	0.05	42	0.12
Falvay 1989		45	0.51	69	0.00	52	0.04	66	0.04	50	0.05	61	0.04
Farrell 1958		39	0.52	56	0.00	49	0.07	47	0.07	23	0.33	39	0.15
Ferenczy 1958		5	0.67	21	0.01	5	0.11	13	0.48	2	0.57	8	0.52
Fliere 1977		25	0.56	39	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	52	0.06	52	0.06
Fou 1978		76	0.37	52	0.00	82	0.04	57	0.04	76	0.04	64	0.04
Francois 1956		10	0.64	25	0.01	28	0.11	25	0.42	16	0.42	25	0.42
Friedman 1923		86	0.21	60	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	31	0.22	38	0.16
Friedman 1923b		85	0.22	65	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.13	30	0.25	36	0.18
Friedman 1930		65	0.43	18	0.01	30	0.10	28	0.39	13	0.52	24	0.45
Garcia 2007		79	0.30	54	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	35	0.19	48	0.09
Garcia 2007b		87	0.20	78	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	42	0.12	54	0.06
Gierzod 1998		37	0.53	74	0.00	37	0.08	34	0.29	43	0.10	37	0.17
Gornostaeva 1994		44	0.51	75	0.00	69	0.05	55	0.05	65	0.04	75	0.04
Groot 1988		23	0.57	87	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	74	0.03	77	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		58	0.47	8	0.03	10	0.12	12	0.49	34	0.23	35	0.34
Hatto 1993		59	0.47	15	0.01	19	0.12	27	0.40	9	0.53	21	0.46
Hatto 1997		38	0.53	10	0.02	11	0.11	17	0.45	8	0.52	13	0.48
Horowitz 1949		48	0.51	7	0.04	35	0.07	43	0.12	33	0.19	40	0.15
Indjic 1988		54	0.49	40	0.00	18	0.10	26	0.41	8	0.53	15	0.47
Kapell 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kissin 1993		63	0.44	45	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	62	0.04	82	0.03
Kushner 1989		34	0.54	88	0.00	57	0.04	69	0.04	62	0.04	65	0.04
Luisada 1991		49	0.50	35	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.12	46	0.07	46	0.09
Lushtak 2004		26	0.56	32	0.00	21	0.11	16	0.46	17	0.48	16	0.47
Malcuzynski 1961		15	0.62	63	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.13	47	0.06	47	0.09
Magaloff 1978		47	0.51	48	0.00	68	0.04	58	0.04	64	0.03	79	0.03
Magin 1975		75	0.37	24	0.01	70	0.03	74	0.03	57	0.04	80	0.03
Michalowski 1933		52	0.49	55	0.00	12	0.10	19	0.45	6	0.47	18	0.46
Milkina 1970		50	0.50	80	0.00	75	0.03	84	0.03	61	0.04	81	0.03
Mohovich 1999		35	0.54	76	0.00	53	0.04	64	0.04	65	0.04	74	0.04
Moravec 1969		13	0.63	66	0.00	33	0.07	29	0.37	18	0.38	28	0.37
Morozova 2008		64	0.44	50	0.00	46	0.05	50	0.05	67	0.04	71	0.04
Neighaus 1950		36	0.54	57	0.00	48	0.09	46	0.09	59	0.05	51	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		43	0.52	19	0.01	50	0.05	52	0.05	14	0.39	41	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		11	0.64	37	0.00	27	0.11	18	0.45	24	0.27	33	0.35
Osinska 1989		28	0.56	68	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	37	0.14	43	0.12
Pachmann 1927		78	0.34	11	0.02	80	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.05	69	0.04
Paderewski 1930		14	0.62	22	0.01	31	0.10	23	0.43	2	0.55	12	0.49
Perlemuter 1992		71	0.40	71	0.00	60	0.05	51	0.05	67	0.04	58	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		66	0.43	84	0.00	66	0.03	73	0.03	55	0.05	62	0.04
Poblocka 1999		2	0.71	2	0.12	2	0.18	2	0.57	2	0.66	1	0.61
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.54	85	0.00	36	0.06	31	0.32	19	0.46	27	0.38
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.47	31	0.00	42	0.05	39	0.15	45	0.09	44	0.12
Rangell 2001		42	0.52	17	0.01	62	0.04	63	0.04	55	0.04	76	0.04
Richter 1976		30	0.55	12	0.01	15	0.10	33	0.30	10	0.41	32	0.35
Rosen 1989		56	0.48	61	0.00	64	0.05	49	0.05	51	0.04	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		62	0.45	59	0.00	67	0.04	62	0.04	48	0.05	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.24	83	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	66	0.03	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.23	86	0.00	86	0.02	90	0.02	72	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.41	89	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	62	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.28	90	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	72	0.03	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		88	0.11	91	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	68	0.03	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		82	0.28	14	0.01	84	0.03	83	0.03	48	0.05	63	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		69	0.41	13	0.01	83	0.04	65	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		55	0.48	58	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	56	0.06	70	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		12	0.64	38	0.00	6	0.12	8	0.53	2	0.65	2	0.59
Shebanova 2002		46	0.51	49	0.00	51	0.04	59	0.04	56	0.06	55	0.05
Smith 1975		21	0.59	43	0.00	25	0.09	20	0.45	22	0.34	26	0.39
Sokolov 2002		4	0.68	6	0.07	9	0.13	4	0.53	6	0.50	9	0.51
Sztompka 1959		7	0.66	4	0.09	4	0.12	7	0.53	5	0.51	7	0.52
Tomsic 1995		32	0.55	46	0.00	55	0.05	53	0.05	70	0.04	68	0.04
Uninsky 1932		40	0.52	20	0.01	20	0.10	30	0.36	17	0.39	29	0.37
Uninsky 1971		17	0.61	3	0.09	3	0.12	9	0.52	13	0.49	11	0.50
Wasowski 1980		29	0.56	27	0.00	34	0.08	37	0.27	12	0.42	34	0.34
Zak 1937		51	0.50	77	0.00	58	0.04	71	0.04	61	0.05	66	0.04
Zak 1951		53	0.49	67	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	65	0.04	67	0.04
Average		1	0.76	1	0.20	1	0.20	1	0.73	28	0.29	19	0.46
Random 1		91	-0.15	81	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.01	42	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	39	0.13	56	0.05
Random 3		89	0.02	51	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	34	0.21	53	0.06

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).