Lushtak 2004

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		36	0.50	82	0.00	47	0.05	54	0.05	60	0.04	80	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		57	0.43	42	0.00	12	0.09	32	0.27	18	0.47	26	0.36
Ashkenazy 1981		8	0.61	32	0.00	13	0.12	9	0.54	23	0.36	17	0.44
Bacha 2000		68	0.40	56	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	37	0.23	59	0.08
Badura 1965		59	0.42	64	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.14	15	0.40	36	0.24
Barbosa 1983		12	0.59	26	0.00	18	0.09	11	0.52	5	0.58	7	0.55
Biret 1990		38	0.50	52	0.00	31	0.09	29	0.33	13	0.50	21	0.41
Blet 2003		25	0.55	45	0.00	30	0.07	22	0.40	14	0.43	20	0.41
Block 1995		73	0.38	68	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	54	0.04	81	0.04
Blumental 1952		72	0.38	53	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	40	0.16	54	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		18	0.57	4	0.05	20	0.09	27	0.35	19	0.50	19	0.42
Brailowsky 1960		53	0.45	83	0.00	70	0.04	64	0.04	42	0.10	67	0.06
Bunin 1987		2	0.65	17	0.01	2	0.13	2	0.62	3	0.61	4	0.61
Bunin 1987b		3	0.65	65	0.00	3	0.13	3	0.62	3	0.61	3	0.61
Chiu 1999		34	0.52	33	0.00	46	0.04	59	0.04	32	0.29	52	0.11
Cohen 1997		63	0.40	39	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	12	0.47	48	0.14
Cortot 1951		49	0.46	46	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	27	0.31	42	0.18
Csalog 1996		66	0.40	14	0.01	64	0.05	52	0.05	21	0.43	45	0.15
Czerny 1949		60	0.41	84	0.00	65	0.04	60	0.04	40	0.15	61	0.08
Czerny 1990		54	0.45	79	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	59	0.05	74	0.05
Duchoud 2007		27	0.55	13	0.01	10	0.09	16	0.48	16	0.47	14	0.47
Ezaki 2006		4	0.63	23	0.00	8	0.10	7	0.56	11	0.49	9	0.52
Falvay 1989		21	0.56	48	0.00	28	0.15	24	0.36	17	0.34	29	0.35
Farrell 1958		37	0.50	7	0.02	49	0.05	55	0.05	5	0.54	44	0.16
Ferenczy 1958		39	0.49	37	0.00	50	0.05	56	0.05	15	0.46	46	0.15
Fliere 1977		20	0.56	59	0.00	34	0.08	28	0.33	33	0.21	33	0.26
Fou 1978		7	0.61	2	0.07	16	0.13	18	0.46	14	0.47	15	0.46
Francois 1956		50	0.46	36	0.00	33	0.07	36	0.18	31	0.25	39	0.21
Friedman 1923		86	0.24	62	0.00	82	0.03	80	0.03	42	0.12	72	0.06
Friedman 1923b		85	0.24	43	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	44	0.10	83	0.04
Friedman 1930		71	0.39	27	0.00	54	0.04	62	0.04	23	0.40	51	0.13
Garcia 2007		81	0.29	85	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	38	0.17	64	0.07
Garcia 2007b		87	0.23	74	0.00	88	0.03	73	0.03	46	0.06	86	0.04
Gierzod 1998		26	0.55	18	0.01	29	0.10	25	0.36	13	0.40	24	0.38
Gornostaeva 1994		52	0.45	57	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	57	0.04	84	0.04
Groot 1988		45	0.48	58	0.00	57	0.05	49	0.05	72	0.03	85	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		24	0.55	38	0.00	23	0.08	20	0.43	23	0.31	25	0.37
Hatto 1993		69	0.39	86	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	38	0.17	62	0.08
Hatto 1997		46	0.48	29	0.00	21	0.09	30	0.30	18	0.43	27	0.36
Horowitz 1949		58	0.42	28	0.00	67	0.05	50	0.05	44	0.08	68	0.06
Indjic 1988		62	0.41	87	0.00	55	0.04	65	0.04	33	0.22	58	0.09
Kapell 1951		19	0.56	66	0.00	22	0.09	17	0.48	16	0.46	13	0.47
Kissin 1993		22	0.56	34	0.00	35	0.08	31	0.30	30	0.31	32	0.30
Kushner 1989		41	0.49	44	0.00	43	0.04	44	0.10	40	0.16	49	0.13
Luisada 1991		51	0.46	77	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	57	0.05	76	0.04
Lushtak 2004		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.59	10	0.02	25	0.08	13	0.50	30	0.29	23	0.38
Magaloff 1978		30	0.53	3	0.06	4	0.11	19	0.44	24	0.27	30	0.34
Magin 1975		75	0.38	88	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	49	0.06	78	0.04
Michalowski 1933		80	0.30	67	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	53	0.05	79	0.04
Milkina 1970		74	0.38	89	0.00	76	0.03	86	0.03	84	0.03	90	0.03
Mohovich 1999		16	0.58	20	0.00	27	0.11	23	0.38	19	0.43	22	0.40
Moravec 1969		76	0.35	49	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	69	0.04	87	0.03
Morozova 2008		23	0.55	16	0.01	36	0.08	33	0.23	34	0.14	40	0.18
Neighaus 1950		5	0.62	12	0.01	14	0.09	6	0.58	20	0.45	11	0.51
Niedzielski 1931		84	0.25	75	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	70	0.03	89	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		11	0.59	60	0.00	19	0.10	10	0.53	11	0.46	12	0.49
Osinska 1989		47	0.47	31	0.00	52	0.05	48	0.05	36	0.15	56	0.09
Pachmann 1927		42	0.49	9	0.02	17	0.09	34	0.23	18	0.47	31	0.33
Paderewski 1930		43	0.49	40	0.00	39	0.06	42	0.14	12	0.45	34	0.25
Perlemuter 1992		33	0.52	69	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.17	27	0.32	37	0.23
Pierdomenico 2008		61	0.41	50	0.00	71	0.03	71	0.03	49	0.06	77	0.04
Poblocka 1999		13	0.59	19	0.01	6	0.13	8	0.55	6	0.53	8	0.54
Rabcewiczowa 1932		65	0.40	80	0.00	66	0.06	47	0.06	28	0.32	47	0.14
Rachmaninoff 1923		67	0.40	78	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	43	0.11	63	0.07
Rangell 2001		55	0.44	21	0.00	58	0.04	63	0.04	29	0.26	55	0.10
Richter 1976		32	0.52	61	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.15	16	0.37	35	0.24
Rosen 1989		44	0.48	55	0.00	59	0.05	51	0.05	76	0.03	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.33	90	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	43	0.11	70	0.06
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.31	72	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	41	0.12	69	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.30	81	0.00	85	0.03	72	0.03	41	0.15	66	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.39	41	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	42	0.13	71	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.28	70	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	42	0.09	75	0.05
Rossi 2007		83	0.26	35	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	24	0.27	57	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.22	51	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	50	0.05	88	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		56	0.44	5	0.03	26	0.07	39	0.16	33	0.19	43	0.17
Rubinstein 1966		40	0.49	22	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	26	0.33	50	0.13
Schilhawsky 1960		15	0.58	6	0.02	5	0.10	15	0.48	6	0.57	10	0.52
Shebanova 2002		28	0.55	25	0.00	37	0.07	35	0.19	42	0.18	41	0.18
Smith 1975		9	0.60	30	0.00	7	0.10	4	0.61	8	0.51	5	0.56
Sokolov 2002		29	0.54	91	0.00	32	0.06	26	0.35	27	0.35	28	0.35
Sztompka 1959		35	0.50	73	0.00	51	0.06	46	0.06	38	0.21	53	0.11
Tomsic 1995		6	0.61	11	0.01	15	0.10	14	0.49	13	0.40	16	0.44
Uninsky 1932		48	0.46	47	0.00	41	0.06	38	0.17	26	0.25	38	0.21
Uninsky 1971		31	0.53	8	0.02	9	0.13	21	0.43	23	0.42	18	0.42
Wasowski 1980		64	0.40	76	0.00	48	0.04	67	0.04	40	0.17	60	0.08
Zak 1937		17	0.58	24	0.00	24	0.09	12	0.52	6	0.58	6	0.55
Zak 1951		10	0.60	15	0.01	11	0.09	5	0.60	4	0.65	2	0.62
Average		1	0.72	1	0.54	1	0.53	1	0.81	9	0.51	1	0.64
Random 1		91	-0.04	71	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	68	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.04	63	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	42	0.11	73	0.05
Random 3		89	0.04	54	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	33	0.24	65	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).