Afanassiev 2001

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		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Anderszewski 2003		68	0.55	60	0.00	58	0.03	68	0.03	69	0.03	90	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		55	0.60	58	0.00	42	0.08	42	0.17	37	0.19	43	0.18
Bacha 2000		65	0.56	45	0.00	55	0.04	58	0.04	39	0.17	68	0.08
Badura 1965		28	0.71	78	0.00	26	0.07	28	0.32	1	0.64	22	0.45
Barbosa 1983		56	0.60	42	0.00	54	0.04	56	0.04	13	0.42	45	0.13
Biret 1990		30	0.70	6	0.03	35	0.07	37	0.24	15	0.37	37	0.30
Blet 2003		7	0.78	41	0.00	16	0.08	22	0.40	3	0.57	16	0.48
Block 1995		66	0.56	80	0.00	53	0.04	53	0.04	49	0.05	81	0.04
Blumental 1952		74	0.51	53	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	27	0.19	46	0.13
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.67	62	0.00	47	0.04	50	0.04	23	0.35	52	0.12
Brailowsky 1960		63	0.57	82	0.00	83	0.04	51	0.04	75	0.04	80	0.04
Bunin 1987		58	0.59	87	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	26	0.35	53	0.12
Bunin 1987b		62	0.59	76	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	25	0.37	50	0.12
Chiu 1999		60	0.59	50	0.00	61	0.03	86	0.03	26	0.29	63	0.09
Cohen 1997		88	0.28	43	0.00	88	0.04	60	0.04	66	0.04	83	0.04
Cortot 1951		40	0.66	86	0.00	48	0.05	46	0.05	20	0.35	47	0.13
Csalog 1996		72	0.53	30	0.00	74	0.03	71	0.03	29	0.25	66	0.09
Czerny 1949		4	0.81	2	0.10	2	0.30	2	0.64	3	0.67	2	0.65
Czerny 1990		2	0.83	3	0.06	3	0.31	3	0.62	3	0.65	3	0.63
Duchoud 2007		41	0.66	14	0.01	41	0.09	41	0.19	5	0.45	39	0.29
Ezaki 2006		3	0.81	16	0.01	4	0.13	4	0.62	3	0.61	4	0.61
Falvay 1989		52	0.62	15	0.01	77	0.03	73	0.03	42	0.15	75	0.07
Farrell 1958		47	0.63	25	0.01	70	0.03	81	0.03	73	0.04	88	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		44	0.65	20	0.01	44	0.05	44	0.10	16	0.32	42	0.18
Fliere 1977		5	0.81	36	0.00	5	0.13	5	0.57	7	0.53	6	0.55
Fou 1978		36	0.68	8	0.02	38	0.07	31	0.30	21	0.38	31	0.34
Francois 1956		11	0.76	27	0.01	18	0.08	10	0.47	3	0.65	7	0.55
Friedman 1923		81	0.49	44	0.00	63	0.03	77	0.03	10	0.53	48	0.13
Friedman 1923b		80	0.49	51	0.00	62	0.03	82	0.03	10	0.51	54	0.12
Friedman 1930		75	0.51	61	0.00	60	0.03	85	0.03	24	0.38	58	0.11
Garcia 2007		70	0.54	59	0.00	73	0.03	72	0.03	34	0.20	72	0.08
Garcia 2007b		86	0.40	83	0.00	67	0.03	76	0.03	24	0.21	74	0.08
Gierzod 1998		16	0.74	11	0.01	7	0.13	6	0.54	8	0.53	9	0.53
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.69	38	0.00	24	0.06	34	0.26	16	0.44	33	0.34
Groot 1988		25	0.71	7	0.03	36	0.07	36	0.26	22	0.43	35	0.33
Harasiewicz 1955		45	0.64	17	0.01	32	0.11	30	0.30	21	0.37	36	0.33
Hatto 1993		79	0.49	57	0.00	56	0.05	48	0.05	30	0.19	62	0.10
Hatto 1997		64	0.56	31	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	24	0.26	44	0.17
Horowitz 1949		57	0.60	74	0.00	72	0.04	54	0.04	33	0.32	56	0.11
Indjic 1988		73	0.52	56	0.00	51	0.04	64	0.04	27	0.21	65	0.09
Kapell 1951		31	0.70	72	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.33	19	0.37	30	0.35
Kissin 1993		8	0.77	22	0.01	11	0.11	7	0.52	8	0.62	5	0.57
Kushner 1989		13	0.75	73	0.00	19	0.06	21	0.41	19	0.45	23	0.43
Luisada 1991		38	0.67	28	0.00	20	0.08	32	0.29	28	0.37	34	0.33
Lushtak 2004		35	0.68	88	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.26	29	0.23	41	0.24
Malcuzynski 1961		32	0.69	21	0.01	39	0.06	38	0.23	6	0.51	32	0.34
Magaloff 1978		54	0.61	37	0.00	50	0.04	61	0.04	46	0.08	79	0.06
Magin 1975		59	0.59	24	0.01	23	0.06	39	0.22	18	0.31	40	0.26
Michalowski 1933		76	0.50	64	0.00	52	0.04	65	0.04	24	0.37	51	0.12
Milkina 1970		24	0.71	23	0.01	34	0.07	25	0.36	18	0.38	28	0.37
Mohovich 1999		14	0.74	40	0.00	28	0.08	16	0.43	10	0.53	17	0.48
Moravec 1969		53	0.61	65	0.00	76	0.04	59	0.04	26	0.34	49	0.12
Morozova 2008		22	0.71	10	0.02	8	0.11	18	0.43	4	0.50	19	0.46
Neighaus 1950		12	0.75	46	0.00	9	0.09	8	0.52	7	0.53	10	0.52
Niedzielski 1931		48	0.63	54	0.00	64	0.03	84	0.03	15	0.41	55	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		26	0.71	32	0.00	22	0.06	17	0.43	15	0.43	24	0.43
Osinska 1989		9	0.76	55	0.00	17	0.06	13	0.46	8	0.55	12	0.50
Pachmann 1927		61	0.59	69	0.00	78	0.04	52	0.04	20	0.33	57	0.11
Paderewski 1930		51	0.62	52	0.00	71	0.03	69	0.03	29	0.20	71	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		20	0.73	71	0.00	31	0.08	33	0.27	11	0.45	29	0.35
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.54	77	0.00	79	0.04	57	0.04	42	0.13	77	0.07
Poblocka 1999		10	0.76	13	0.01	12	0.12	14	0.46	8	0.50	14	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		33	0.69	39	0.00	33	0.08	29	0.31	8	0.49	26	0.39
Rachmaninoff 1923		23	0.71	12	0.01	21	0.10	20	0.41	5	0.57	15	0.48
Rangell 2001		78	0.49	35	0.00	81	0.05	47	0.05	34	0.22	61	0.10
Richter 1976		49	0.63	67	0.00	68	0.03	80	0.03	25	0.29	64	0.09
Rosen 1989		17	0.73	5	0.04	6	0.11	11	0.47	11	0.53	13	0.50
Rosenthal 1930		67	0.55	68	0.00	75	0.04	63	0.04	33	0.22	67	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.41	70	0.00	84	0.03	74	0.03	63	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.39	81	0.00	87	0.03	70	0.03	50	0.05	85	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		77	0.50	66	0.00	80	0.04	62	0.04	40	0.17	73	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.43	63	0.00	86	0.02	89	0.02	47	0.07	84	0.04
Rossi 2007		82	0.45	33	0.00	82	0.03	75	0.03	28	0.24	70	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.43	26	0.01	85	0.02	87	0.02	63	0.04	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		71	0.53	18	0.01	59	0.03	83	0.03	55	0.06	86	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.62	49	0.00	49	0.04	55	0.04	32	0.27	60	0.10
Schilhawsky 1960		29	0.70	47	0.00	29	0.09	26	0.34	21	0.43	27	0.38
Shebanova 2002		15	0.74	75	0.00	27	0.06	19	0.42	14	0.50	20	0.46
Smith 1975		42	0.65	89	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	44	0.10	76	0.07
Sokolov 2002		37	0.68	34	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.20	17	0.42	38	0.29
Sztompka 1959		6	0.78	29	0.00	10	0.13	9	0.51	4	0.57	8	0.54
Tomsic 1995		46	0.64	84	0.00	69	0.03	79	0.03	28	0.31	59	0.10
Uninsky 1932		27	0.71	48	0.00	25	0.06	23	0.39	5	0.57	18	0.47
Uninsky 1971		21	0.72	4	0.04	13	0.12	12	0.47	6	0.55	11	0.51
Wasowski 1980		43	0.65	79	0.00	57	0.03	78	0.03	28	0.20	69	0.08
Zak 1937		19	0.73	19	0.01	15	0.10	24	0.38	14	0.45	25	0.41
Zak 1951		18	0.73	9	0.02	14	0.12	15	0.43	11	0.48	21	0.45
Average		1	0.86	1	0.45	1	0.44	1	0.77	4	0.62	1	0.69
Random 1		91	-0.20	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	77	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.08	85	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	21	0.22	78	0.07
Random 3		90	-0.11	90	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	44	0.08	82	0.04

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).