Pachmann 1927

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		32	0.43	37	0.00	32	0.07	33	0.24	66	0.04	38	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		83	0.12	75	0.00	74	0.04	65	0.04	89	0.02	76	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		52	0.32	61	0.00	60	0.06	49	0.06	80	0.03	66	0.04
Bacha 2000		33	0.41	52	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	41	0.16	35	0.10
Badura 1965		65	0.28	38	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	78	0.03	65	0.04
Barbosa 1983		14	0.52	20	0.01	8	0.13	6	0.62	12	0.51	3	0.56
Biret 1990		47	0.36	63	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	51	0.05	49	0.05
Blet 2003		27	0.45	77	0.00	35	0.07	31	0.25	67	0.05	34	0.11
Block 1995		35	0.40	25	0.00	38	0.06	38	0.16	52	0.04	41	0.08
Blumental 1952		88	0.06	85	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.01	89	0.01
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.48	10	0.03	9	0.13	12	0.54	20	0.49	6	0.51
Brailowsky 1960		23	0.48	45	0.00	25	0.06	24	0.36	26	0.32	15	0.34
Bunin 1987		12	0.53	5	0.04	7	0.21	9	0.60	15	0.43	7	0.51
Bunin 1987b		11	0.53	3	0.07	6	0.17	8	0.61	15	0.43	5	0.51
Chiu 1999		3	0.57	1	0.29	1	0.28	2	0.70	4	0.66	1	0.68
Cohen 1997		43	0.38	46	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.19	16	0.40	20	0.28
Cortot 1951		79	0.16	70	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.01	91	0.01
Csalog 1996		17	0.52	15	0.01	16	0.11	17	0.50	18	0.46	10	0.48
Czerny 1949		78	0.18	90	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	73	0.03	86	0.02
Czerny 1990		56	0.31	78	0.00	64	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03
Duchoud 2007		59	0.30	47	0.00	72	0.05	60	0.05	81	0.03	64	0.04
Ezaki 2006		38	0.39	76	0.00	52	0.05	58	0.05	77	0.03	51	0.04
Falvay 1989		18	0.51	40	0.00	22	0.09	21	0.45	47	0.06	27	0.16
Farrell 1958		40	0.39	64	0.00	50	0.05	54	0.05	35	0.21	36	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		75	0.22	80	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.03	77	0.03
Fliere 1977		4	0.57	9	0.04	3	0.21	3	0.68	20	0.45	4	0.55
Fou 1978		1	0.61	2	0.13	2	0.20	1	0.72	12	0.49	2	0.59
Francois 1956		37	0.40	48	0.00	53	0.06	48	0.06	81	0.03	68	0.04
Friedman 1923		85	0.11	30	0.00	82	0.02	81	0.02	63	0.05	84	0.03
Friedman 1923b		82	0.13	35	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.06	67	0.04
Friedman 1930		80	0.16	24	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	48	0.05	62	0.04
Garcia 2007		77	0.20	49	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.03	79	0.03
Garcia 2007b		86	0.10	54	0.00	77	0.02	84	0.02	51	0.05	83	0.03
Gierzod 1998		57	0.31	86	0.00	65	0.03	70	0.03	71	0.03	78	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		45	0.37	81	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	72	0.03	48	0.05
Groot 1988		2	0.59	4	0.05	4	0.19	7	0.61	23	0.36	12	0.47
Harasiewicz 1955		41	0.38	31	0.00	23	0.07	26	0.34	46	0.05	32	0.13
Hatto 1993		71	0.24	82	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	56	0.04	47	0.06
Hatto 1997		68	0.25	26	0.00	24	0.08	37	0.18	79	0.03	45	0.07
Horowitz 1949		31	0.43	41	0.00	34	0.08	29	0.27	40	0.10	29	0.16
Indjic 1988		67	0.26	65	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.15	50	0.05	39	0.09
Kapell 1951		49	0.34	17	0.01	58	0.05	51	0.05	77	0.03	56	0.04
Kissin 1993		24	0.48	27	0.00	21	0.09	20	0.45	48	0.06	30	0.16
Kushner 1989		55	0.32	32	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	83	0.03	74	0.03
Luisada 1991		51	0.33	71	0.00	59	0.04	64	0.04	81	0.03	69	0.03
Lushtak 2004		20	0.49	12	0.02	11	0.11	18	0.47	34	0.23	16	0.33
Malcuzynski 1961		22	0.48	62	0.00	27	0.09	27	0.34	55	0.04	33	0.12
Magaloff 1978		13	0.52	6	0.04	5	0.15	5	0.65	19	0.32	13	0.46
Magin 1975		74	0.22	55	0.00	73	0.05	56	0.05	71	0.03	55	0.04
Michalowski 1933		84	0.12	56	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.04	75	0.03
Milkina 1970		34	0.40	66	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.12	57	0.04	44	0.07
Mohovich 1999		9	0.54	67	0.00	18	0.11	15	0.51	36	0.20	17	0.32
Moravec 1969		70	0.24	87	0.00	84	0.02	83	0.02	83	0.03	85	0.02
Morozova 2008		58	0.30	50	0.00	51	0.05	50	0.05	82	0.03	61	0.04
Neighaus 1950		15	0.52	16	0.01	12	0.13	14	0.53	48	0.07	25	0.19
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.29	23	0.01	54	0.05	52	0.05	63	0.04	54	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.43	18	0.01	28	0.09	30	0.25	66	0.04	37	0.10
Osinska 1989		42	0.38	53	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	62	0.05	52	0.04
Pachmann 1927		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Paderewski 1930		36	0.40	19	0.01	29	0.06	32	0.25	24	0.25	21	0.25
Perlemuter 1992		28	0.45	36	0.00	30	0.07	28	0.32	48	0.06	31	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		44	0.37	22	0.01	39	0.05	41	0.13	33	0.19	28	0.16
Poblocka 1999		39	0.39	68	0.00	48	0.05	57	0.05	88	0.03	53	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		72	0.24	83	0.00	75	0.04	67	0.04	76	0.03	73	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		63	0.28	88	0.00	69	0.03	71	0.03	67	0.04	72	0.03
Rangell 2001		29	0.43	84	0.00	26	0.08	23	0.37	28	0.26	18	0.31
Richter 1976		19	0.50	11	0.03	17	0.10	19	0.47	20	0.34	14	0.40
Rosen 1989		25	0.46	28	0.00	36	0.09	34	0.22	74	0.03	42	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		81	0.15	89	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	82	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.22	57	0.00	67	0.03	73	0.03	48	0.05	59	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		73	0.23	91	0.00	62	0.03	72	0.03	58	0.04	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.25	39	0.00	71	0.04	66	0.04	69	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		66	0.27	79	0.00	61	0.05	55	0.05	47	0.05	50	0.05
Rossi 2007		87	0.09	72	0.00	79	0.02	82	0.02	52	0.04	71	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		61	0.28	14	0.01	42	0.05	43	0.12	17	0.41	24	0.22
Rubinstein 1952		6	0.56	21	0.01	15	0.19	10	0.58	18	0.44	8	0.51
Rubinstein 1966		26	0.46	58	0.00	31	0.07	25	0.34	39	0.19	22	0.25
Schilhawsky 1960		48	0.36	51	0.00	47	0.04	63	0.04	54	0.05	60	0.04
Shebanova 2002		16	0.52	33	0.00	20	0.08	22	0.44	44	0.12	23	0.23
Smith 1975		46	0.37	42	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.15	79	0.03	43	0.07
Sokolov 2002		54	0.32	59	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	78	0.03	70	0.03
Sztompka 1959		62	0.28	60	0.00	76	0.04	62	0.04	75	0.04	57	0.04
Tomsic 1995		10	0.53	13	0.02	19	0.10	16	0.51	35	0.18	19	0.30
Uninsky 1932		64	0.28	29	0.00	63	0.03	76	0.03	57	0.05	63	0.04
Uninsky 1971		50	0.34	44	0.00	56	0.06	46	0.06	69	0.03	58	0.04
Wasowski 1980		53	0.32	34	0.00	33	0.08	35	0.21	76	0.03	40	0.08
Zak 1937		7	0.55	7	0.04	14	0.17	11	0.55	16	0.42	9	0.48
Zak 1951		8	0.55	8	0.04	13	0.12	13	0.54	18	0.41	11	0.47
Average		5	0.56	43	0.00	10	0.13	4	0.65	50	0.05	26	0.18
Random 1		89	-0.02	69	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	30	0.21	46	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.10	73	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.06	74	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01

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).