Block 1995

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		31	0.56	89	0.00	50	0.05	49	0.05	53	0.04	68	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		23	0.59	24	0.01	17	0.07	21	0.34	29	0.20	17	0.26
Ashkenazy 1981		49	0.48	32	0.00	34	0.05	33	0.20	65	0.04	39	0.09
Bacha 2000		41	0.50	35	0.00	23	0.07	27	0.27	32	0.22	19	0.24
Badura 1965		58	0.47	84	0.00	64	0.03	74	0.03	57	0.05	70	0.04
Barbosa 1983		79	0.34	48	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.03
Biret 1990		50	0.48	40	0.00	59	0.04	66	0.04	77	0.04	73	0.04
Blet 2003		47	0.49	39	0.00	52	0.04	52	0.04	38	0.13	47	0.07
Block 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blumental 1952		86	0.24	22	0.01	47	0.05	50	0.05	73	0.03	71	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		1	0.67	5	0.07	3	0.13	2	0.52	12	0.54	1	0.53
Brailowsky 1960		13	0.62	7	0.05	5	0.12	12	0.39	15	0.41	4	0.40
Bunin 1987		70	0.40	51	0.00	82	0.03	68	0.03	54	0.05	72	0.04
Bunin 1987b		72	0.40	41	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	53	0.05	77	0.03
Chiu 1999		61	0.46	11	0.02	32	0.05	36	0.17	45	0.09	31	0.12
Cohen 1997		88	0.23	28	0.01	61	0.03	76	0.03	38	0.11	55	0.06
Cortot 1951		39	0.51	56	0.00	65	0.04	60	0.04	43	0.15	43	0.08
Csalog 1996		80	0.30	54	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.03
Czerny 1949		59	0.46	27	0.01	51	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04	67	0.04
Czerny 1990		33	0.54	9	0.02	44	0.05	45	0.09	86	0.03	56	0.05
Duchoud 2007		62	0.45	88	0.00	69	0.03	70	0.03	72	0.04	83	0.03
Ezaki 2006		20	0.60	57	0.00	33	0.05	32	0.21	56	0.04	38	0.09
Falvay 1989		34	0.54	42	0.00	46	0.04	51	0.04	62	0.05	58	0.04
Farrell 1958		32	0.55	17	0.01	24	0.08	17	0.35	25	0.26	10	0.30
Ferenczy 1958		42	0.50	20	0.01	63	0.04	62	0.04	60	0.04	66	0.04
Fliere 1977		14	0.61	8	0.03	9	0.10	9	0.43	43	0.12	21	0.23
Fou 1978		21	0.59	21	0.01	15	0.06	16	0.35	39	0.12	23	0.20
Francois 1956		52	0.48	36	0.00	67	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	91	0.02
Friedman 1923		81	0.29	74	0.00	77	0.04	53	0.04	39	0.17	44	0.08
Friedman 1923b		82	0.29	75	0.00	76	0.03	85	0.03	39	0.17	51	0.07
Friedman 1930		78	0.34	79	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	57	0.05	65	0.04
Garcia 2007		38	0.51	52	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.18	27	0.31	20	0.24
Garcia 2007b		77	0.35	76	0.00	55	0.05	46	0.05	31	0.17	40	0.09
Gierzod 1998		40	0.51	63	0.00	54	0.05	48	0.05	74	0.03	69	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		7	0.64	23	0.01	13	0.07	23	0.31	31	0.27	12	0.29
Groot 1988		2	0.67	2	0.12	2	0.16	4	0.49	21	0.44	2	0.46
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.63	4	0.10	4	0.14	5	0.47	27	0.31	6	0.38
Hatto 1993		85	0.26	73	0.00	84	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.04	85	0.03
Hatto 1997		83	0.29	68	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03
Horowitz 1949		29	0.57	29	0.01	31	0.07	24	0.29	37	0.30	11	0.29
Indjic 1988		84	0.27	61	0.00	86	0.04	64	0.04	69	0.04	63	0.04
Kapell 1951		56	0.47	15	0.01	56	0.04	56	0.04	79	0.03	76	0.03
Kissin 1993		8	0.64	31	0.01	22	0.06	19	0.34	53	0.05	30	0.13
Kushner 1989		6	0.64	13	0.02	14	0.09	8	0.45	37	0.17	13	0.28
Luisada 1991		22	0.59	50	0.00	28	0.07	14	0.36	43	0.08	26	0.17
Lushtak 2004		65	0.43	71	0.00	62	0.03	73	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		15	0.61	43	0.00	26	0.07	29	0.26	36	0.14	24	0.19
Magaloff 1978		25	0.58	47	0.00	25	0.06	28	0.26	53	0.05	35	0.11
Magin 1975		24	0.59	12	0.02	16	0.06	20	0.34	33	0.18	18	0.25
Michalowski 1933		75	0.37	72	0.00	57	0.04	59	0.04	62	0.05	62	0.04
Milkina 1970		4	0.66	37	0.00	6	0.11	10	0.40	30	0.25	8	0.32
Mohovich 1999		17	0.60	30	0.01	18	0.07	18	0.35	64	0.04	34	0.12
Moravec 1969		71	0.40	70	0.00	79	0.02	88	0.02	64	0.03	87	0.02
Morozova 2008		43	0.50	59	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.11	57	0.04	48	0.07
Neighaus 1950		16	0.60	26	0.01	11	0.09	7	0.45	37	0.16	15	0.27
Niedzielski 1931		48	0.48	45	0.00	45	0.05	43	0.10	37	0.15	32	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		64	0.44	83	0.00	72	0.04	58	0.04	85	0.03	78	0.03
Osinska 1989		5	0.65	18	0.01	21	0.07	13	0.39	46	0.07	28	0.17
Pachmann 1927		57	0.47	77	0.00	73	0.04	61	0.04	49	0.05	61	0.04
Paderewski 1930		36	0.52	38	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.11	54	0.04	46	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		11	0.62	6	0.06	10	0.09	3	0.51	28	0.25	7	0.36
Pierdomenico 2008		35	0.54	34	0.00	19	0.05	15	0.36	20	0.41	5	0.38
Poblocka 1999		28	0.57	25	0.01	39	0.05	39	0.12	67	0.04	45	0.07
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.43	80	0.00	74	0.04	67	0.04	51	0.04	60	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		51	0.48	66	0.00	49	0.04	57	0.04	80	0.03	75	0.03
Rangell 2001		27	0.57	1	0.17	1	0.17	6	0.45	7	0.46	3	0.45
Richter 1976		12	0.62	16	0.01	27	0.08	30	0.24	28	0.28	16	0.26
Rosen 1989		10	0.63	14	0.01	8	0.11	11	0.40	27	0.26	9	0.32
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.38	53	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		68	0.41	86	0.00	71	0.03	71	0.03	67	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		69	0.41	78	0.00	70	0.03	82	0.03	59	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		76	0.36	46	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	67	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		60	0.46	90	0.00	60	0.03	72	0.03	35	0.16	52	0.07
Rossi 2007		55	0.47	19	0.01	37	0.07	35	0.17	30	0.23	22	0.20
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.24	82	0.00	88	0.04	65	0.04	55	0.05	59	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		73	0.39	60	0.00	58	0.03	69	0.03	46	0.10	57	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		67	0.41	33	0.00	48	0.04	54	0.04	60	0.05	64	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		53	0.48	10	0.02	12	0.07	38	0.15	48	0.07	37	0.10
Shebanova 2002		26	0.57	67	0.00	30	0.06	26	0.27	49	0.05	33	0.12
Smith 1975		19	0.60	69	0.00	20	0.06	22	0.33	73	0.04	36	0.11
Sokolov 2002		63	0.45	81	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.03	74	0.03
Sztompka 1959		37	0.51	58	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.11	43	0.16	29	0.13
Tomsic 1995		18	0.60	44	0.00	29	0.07	25	0.27	32	0.27	14	0.27
Uninsky 1932		54	0.48	64	0.00	66	0.04	55	0.04	44	0.12	49	0.07
Uninsky 1971		45	0.50	55	0.00	53	0.05	47	0.05	42	0.13	42	0.08
Wasowski 1980		30	0.56	65	0.00	35	0.05	31	0.24	38	0.12	27	0.17
Zak 1937		46	0.49	62	0.00	42	0.05	44	0.10	73	0.04	53	0.06
Zak 1951		44	0.50	87	0.00	38	0.06	37	0.16	68	0.04	41	0.08
Average		3	0.66	3	0.10	7	0.12	1	0.62	53	0.05	25	0.18
Random 1		90	-0.10	85	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	25	0.33	54	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.20	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	78	0.03	88	0.02
Random 3		89	0.02	49	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	22	0.26	50	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).