Magin 1975

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		69	0.34	60	0.00	69	0.04	62	0.04	78	0.03	82	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		7	0.62	5	0.07	4	0.22	14	0.40	12	0.51	10	0.45
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.66	1	0.21	1	0.21	1	0.72	10	0.53	1	0.62
Bacha 2000		67	0.35	82	0.00	67	0.03	81	0.03	43	0.13	56	0.06
Badura 1965		63	0.36	43	0.00	60	0.04	59	0.04	53	0.05	68	0.04
Barbosa 1983		81	0.23	78	0.00	77	0.03	67	0.03	71	0.04	79	0.03
Biret 1990		68	0.35	48	0.00	70	0.03	72	0.03	76	0.04	86	0.03
Blet 2003		33	0.46	19	0.01	45	0.06	44	0.12	56	0.05	47	0.08
Block 1995		22	0.50	54	0.00	24	0.05	18	0.28	26	0.29	18	0.28
Blumental 1952		43	0.43	7	0.05	18	0.11	33	0.21	22	0.28	20	0.24
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.53	21	0.01	28	0.08	26	0.25	44	0.13	26	0.18
Brailowsky 1960		42	0.43	66	0.00	27	0.05	39	0.15	43	0.10	37	0.12
Bunin 1987		52	0.39	56	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04
Bunin 1987b		51	0.39	70	0.00	64	0.03	76	0.03	66	0.04	77	0.03
Chiu 1999		54	0.39	79	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.12	42	0.15	35	0.13
Cohen 1997		87	0.18	36	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		79	0.27	58	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	76	0.03	87	0.03
Csalog 1996		86	0.20	47	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	56	0.06	65	0.04
Czerny 1949		74	0.30	42	0.00	62	0.04	58	0.04	83	0.02	81	0.03
Czerny 1990		17	0.53	16	0.01	17	0.12	15	0.40	31	0.23	16	0.30
Duchoud 2007		23	0.50	71	0.00	32	0.05	21	0.27	44	0.09	29	0.16
Ezaki 2006		29	0.48	55	0.00	41	0.07	37	0.17	69	0.04	45	0.08
Falvay 1989		36	0.44	67	0.00	48	0.06	46	0.06	60	0.05	59	0.05
Farrell 1958		78	0.27	38	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.03	89	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		88	0.14	83	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Fliere 1977		11	0.57	29	0.00	19	0.08	16	0.37	51	0.06	30	0.15
Fou 1978		32	0.47	39	0.00	26	0.05	19	0.28	44	0.15	22	0.20
Francois 1956		73	0.32	24	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	70	0.03	73	0.04
Friedman 1923		82	0.22	57	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	36	0.15	55	0.07
Friedman 1923b		84	0.22	72	0.00	75	0.03	74	0.03	45	0.10	60	0.05
Friedman 1930		77	0.28	25	0.00	63	0.03	66	0.03	53	0.05	67	0.04
Garcia 2007		85	0.21	68	0.00	82	0.03	77	0.03	67	0.03	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		75	0.30	30	0.00	40	0.05	45	0.11	24	0.29	27	0.18
Gierzod 1998		37	0.44	84	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	44	0.09	52	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		18	0.53	64	0.00	35	0.06	25	0.25	43	0.14	23	0.19
Groot 1988		25	0.49	20	0.01	25	0.05	34	0.19	50	0.05	43	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		19	0.51	73	0.00	12	0.16	13	0.41	24	0.29	14	0.34
Hatto 1993		12	0.56	9	0.03	6	0.13	4	0.58	7	0.54	3	0.56
Hatto 1997		27	0.48	61	0.00	16	0.13	17	0.36	22	0.34	13	0.35
Horowitz 1949		31	0.47	31	0.00	30	0.05	30	0.22	36	0.15	25	0.18
Indjic 1988		14	0.55	8	0.03	7	0.14	6	0.56	11	0.47	5	0.51
Kapell 1951		57	0.37	28	0.00	73	0.04	57	0.04	74	0.03	76	0.03
Kissin 1993		5	0.63	6	0.06	5	0.15	2	0.61	11	0.56	2	0.58
Kushner 1989		6	0.62	62	0.00	11	0.11	8	0.53	10	0.49	4	0.51
Luisada 1991		1	0.66	2	0.16	3	0.19	9	0.52	7	0.47	7	0.49
Lushtak 2004		56	0.38	85	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	74	0.03	69	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.63	3	0.11	2	0.21	3	0.58	14	0.43	6	0.50
Magaloff 1978		8	0.62	23	0.00	9	0.13	12	0.43	23	0.28	12	0.35
Magin 1975		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Michalowski 1933		53	0.39	11	0.02	23	0.05	31	0.22	51	0.05	40	0.10
Milkina 1970		21	0.50	59	0.00	36	0.06	29	0.23	37	0.20	21	0.21
Mohovich 1999		40	0.44	53	0.00	49	0.05	55	0.05	63	0.04	70	0.04
Moravec 1969		60	0.37	86	0.00	55	0.06	48	0.06	47	0.06	57	0.06
Morozova 2008		15	0.53	33	0.00	15	0.13	20	0.27	45	0.08	31	0.15
Neighaus 1950		30	0.48	80	0.00	38	0.07	32	0.21	67	0.04	44	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.38	22	0.00	46	0.05	53	0.05	16	0.35	36	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		10	0.58	13	0.02	14	0.17	7	0.54	16	0.37	9	0.45
Osinska 1989		59	0.37	45	0.00	72	0.03	68	0.03	63	0.05	62	0.04
Pachmann 1927		83	0.22	46	0.00	79	0.03	71	0.03	56	0.05	63	0.04
Paderewski 1930		44	0.43	14	0.02	58	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.03	78	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		26	0.49	27	0.00	34	0.05	27	0.25	41	0.13	24	0.18
Pierdomenico 2008		35	0.45	63	0.00	21	0.06	23	0.27	18	0.33	15	0.30
Poblocka 1999		46	0.41	37	0.00	71	0.03	69	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		76	0.28	87	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.02	88	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.41	74	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.19	44	0.10	33	0.14
Rangell 2001		38	0.44	75	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.12	62	0.04	54	0.07
Richter 1976		13	0.55	4	0.09	10	0.11	10	0.48	6	0.43	8	0.45
Rosen 1989		39	0.44	69	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.15	84	0.03	53	0.07
Rosenthal 1930		71	0.33	81	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		61	0.36	88	0.00	53	0.05	50	0.05	32	0.21	41	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		64	0.35	89	0.00	57	0.04	61	0.04	37	0.17	49	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		45	0.42	90	0.00	59	0.04	63	0.04	56	0.05	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		65	0.35	76	0.00	66	0.03	80	0.03	37	0.14	58	0.06
Rossi 2007		72	0.33	34	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.15	9	0.41	19	0.25
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.24	26	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	51	0.05	75	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		48	0.41	18	0.01	61	0.04	60	0.04	52	0.07	61	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		62	0.36	52	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.04	80	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		66	0.35	91	0.00	68	0.03	73	0.03	58	0.05	66	0.04
Shebanova 2002		24	0.49	10	0.02	20	0.06	22	0.27	31	0.32	17	0.29
Smith 1975		20	0.50	44	0.00	22	0.06	24	0.25	76	0.04	39	0.10
Sokolov 2002		9	0.61	12	0.02	13	0.14	11	0.44	26	0.36	11	0.40
Sztompka 1959		70	0.34	41	0.00	81	0.03	70	0.03	60	0.05	64	0.04
Tomsic 1995		28	0.48	32	0.00	33	0.05	28	0.24	55	0.05	38	0.11
Uninsky 1932		49	0.40	15	0.01	52	0.05	51	0.05	44	0.10	51	0.07
Uninsky 1971		41	0.43	35	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	45	0.12	46	0.08
Wasowski 1980		34	0.46	17	0.01	31	0.05	36	0.19	42	0.15	28	0.17
Zak 1937		58	0.37	65	0.00	47	0.05	56	0.05	43	0.09	50	0.07
Zak 1951		50	0.39	49	0.00	29	0.05	41	0.14	43	0.15	34	0.14
Average		3	0.64	40	0.00	8	0.14	5	0.57	63	0.04	32	0.15
Random 1		90	0.02	51	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	16	0.34	48	0.08
Random 2		91	-0.03	50	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	67	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		89	0.12	77	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	2	0.52	42	0.10

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).