Blumental 1952

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		34	0.51	56	0.00	21	0.07	27	0.19	45	0.09	28	0.13
Anderszewski 2003		57	0.45	25	0.01	49	0.04	59	0.04	51	0.04	63	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.64	6	0.03	18	0.09	12	0.33	42	0.12	21	0.20
Bacha 2000		30	0.52	23	0.01	32	0.05	32	0.16	45	0.11	25	0.13
Badura 1965		69	0.42	28	0.00	74	0.02	81	0.02	68	0.04	81	0.03
Barbosa 1983		68	0.42	80	0.00	69	0.03	74	0.03	61	0.05	62	0.04
Biret 1990		9	0.58	18	0.01	9	0.07	9	0.36	35	0.20	13	0.27
Blet 2003		29	0.52	37	0.00	42	0.05	38	0.14	58	0.05	43	0.08
Block 1995		87	0.24	36	0.00	60	0.03	73	0.03	50	0.05	67	0.04
Blumental 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Boshniakovich 1969		35	0.51	8	0.02	53	0.05	48	0.05	44	0.11	50	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		47	0.48	61	0.00	73	0.02	83	0.02	80	0.03	89	0.02
Bunin 1987		78	0.35	86	0.00	86	0.04	49	0.04	76	0.03	82	0.03
Bunin 1987b		81	0.34	88	0.00	85	0.04	51	0.04	80	0.03	75	0.03
Chiu 1999		16	0.56	50	0.00	29	0.05	22	0.22	48	0.06	31	0.11
Cohen 1997		70	0.42	59	0.00	81	0.03	65	0.03	36	0.13	56	0.06
Cortot 1951		6	0.59	47	0.00	15	0.07	6	0.41	14	0.42	2	0.41
Csalog 1996		82	0.33	84	0.00	80	0.02	85	0.02	64	0.04	79	0.03
Czerny 1949		27	0.52	30	0.00	14	0.06	15	0.31	32	0.28	11	0.29
Czerny 1990		3	0.63	2	0.11	2	0.20	2	0.48	25	0.28	3	0.37
Duchoud 2007		64	0.43	46	0.00	71	0.02	80	0.02	71	0.04	80	0.03
Ezaki 2006		14	0.57	63	0.00	26	0.05	28	0.18	66	0.04	37	0.08
Falvay 1989		42	0.49	16	0.01	57	0.03	66	0.03	45	0.12	54	0.06
Farrell 1958		12	0.57	53	0.00	22	0.06	14	0.32	34	0.20	14	0.25
Ferenczy 1958		44	0.49	13	0.02	6	0.10	17	0.28	23	0.28	12	0.28
Fliere 1977		38	0.49	43	0.00	62	0.02	78	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02
Fou 1978		41	0.49	45	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	73	0.04	74	0.03
Francois 1956		65	0.43	74	0.00	40	0.05	43	0.09	44	0.11	33	0.10
Friedman 1923		62	0.44	66	0.00	24	0.05	35	0.15	19	0.37	16	0.24
Friedman 1923b		60	0.44	65	0.00	23	0.06	30	0.17	19	0.37	15	0.25
Friedman 1930		63	0.43	62	0.00	48	0.04	57	0.04	37	0.19	35	0.09
Garcia 2007		26	0.53	72	0.00	44	0.06	40	0.13	36	0.20	24	0.16
Garcia 2007b		52	0.47	57	0.00	33	0.06	25	0.21	18	0.25	19	0.23
Gierzod 1998		15	0.56	51	0.00	13	0.06	11	0.34	39	0.16	18	0.23
Gornostaeva 1994		75	0.38	60	0.00	79	0.04	62	0.04	68	0.03	83	0.03
Groot 1988		73	0.40	77	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.03	86	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		67	0.43	17	0.01	52	0.04	52	0.04	88	0.02	87	0.03
Hatto 1993		23	0.53	69	0.00	34	0.06	31	0.17	81	0.03	52	0.07
Hatto 1997		21	0.54	75	0.00	36	0.06	29	0.17	72	0.04	44	0.08
Horowitz 1949		71	0.41	81	0.00	64	0.02	79	0.02	79	0.03	90	0.02
Indjic 1988		22	0.53	83	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.15	84	0.03	49	0.07
Kapell 1951		31	0.52	5	0.04	5	0.09	3	0.47	32	0.27	4	0.36
Kissin 1993		51	0.47	35	0.00	63	0.03	68	0.03	75	0.03	78	0.03
Kushner 1989		28	0.52	34	0.00	43	0.05	41	0.11	57	0.05	47	0.07
Luisada 1991		11	0.58	21	0.01	31	0.05	23	0.21	48	0.06	30	0.11
Lushtak 2004		7	0.58	82	0.00	27	0.05	21	0.22	46	0.06	32	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		76	0.37	24	0.01	51	0.04	55	0.04	34	0.15	41	0.08
Magaloff 1978		54	0.46	64	0.00	72	0.02	84	0.02	75	0.04	73	0.03
Magin 1975		40	0.49	3	0.10	4	0.10	39	0.14	41	0.12	26	0.13
Michalowski 1933		49	0.47	31	0.00	19	0.08	10	0.35	31	0.30	10	0.32
Milkina 1970		48	0.47	14	0.01	30	0.05	42	0.11	57	0.05	48	0.07
Mohovich 1999		36	0.50	12	0.02	55	0.04	56	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04
Moravec 1969		10	0.58	1	0.28	1	0.28	1	0.50	3	0.62	1	0.56
Morozova 2008		4	0.60	19	0.01	20	0.08	20	0.23	39	0.13	23	0.17
Neighaus 1950		55	0.46	52	0.00	50	0.04	54	0.04	57	0.05	70	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		72	0.40	29	0.00	38	0.05	33	0.16	53	0.04	40	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		50	0.47	68	0.00	56	0.04	53	0.04	86	0.03	77	0.03
Osinska 1989		17	0.56	11	0.02	10	0.07	7	0.37	28	0.32	6	0.34
Pachmann 1927		86	0.25	91	0.00	88	0.03	71	0.03	81	0.03	76	0.03
Paderewski 1930		8	0.58	87	0.00	17	0.06	8	0.37	17	0.33	5	0.35
Perlemuter 1992		19	0.55	22	0.01	45	0.04	45	0.09	70	0.04	53	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.33	48	0.00	83	0.04	58	0.04	57	0.05	60	0.04
Poblocka 1999		61	0.44	10	0.02	16	0.07	19	0.23	32	0.20	20	0.21
Rabcewiczowa 1932		5	0.59	33	0.00	8	0.08	16	0.30	18	0.39	7	0.34
Rachmaninoff 1923		46	0.48	7	0.02	7	0.09	37	0.15	65	0.04	38	0.08
Rangell 2001		85	0.25	70	0.00	84	0.04	60	0.04	75	0.03	84	0.03
Richter 1976		88	0.16	39	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	80	0.03	91	0.02
Rosen 1989		39	0.49	54	0.00	28	0.06	24	0.21	37	0.17	22	0.19
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.40	27	0.01	70	0.02	77	0.02	43	0.09	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.32	49	0.00	78	0.03	64	0.03	44	0.09	58	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.35	40	0.00	75	0.02	87	0.02	34	0.11	59	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		66	0.43	15	0.01	58	0.04	61	0.04	34	0.22	36	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.34	73	0.00	76	0.03	72	0.03	74	0.04	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		56	0.45	20	0.01	61	0.02	82	0.02	29	0.23	46	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		45	0.48	85	0.00	66	0.02	86	0.02	25	0.30	39	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		53	0.46	78	0.00	39	0.05	44	0.09	42	0.15	29	0.12
Rubinstein 1966		33	0.51	67	0.00	67	0.03	63	0.03	53	0.05	64	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		59	0.44	41	0.00	54	0.04	50	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.04
Shebanova 2002		25	0.53	44	0.00	41	0.04	36	0.15	67	0.04	45	0.08
Smith 1975		24	0.53	9	0.02	12	0.09	13	0.33	22	0.34	9	0.33
Sokolov 2002		58	0.45	26	0.01	59	0.03	69	0.03	53	0.04	72	0.03
Sztompka 1959		13	0.57	4	0.10	3	0.13	5	0.41	29	0.29	8	0.34
Tomsic 1995		77	0.35	42	0.00	82	0.03	67	0.03	47	0.05	61	0.04
Uninsky 1932		18	0.55	76	0.00	25	0.05	18	0.25	35	0.22	17	0.23
Uninsky 1971		43	0.49	89	0.00	47	0.05	47	0.05	43	0.13	42	0.08
Wasowski 1980		37	0.50	58	0.00	65	0.02	76	0.02	64	0.05	71	0.03
Zak 1937		20	0.55	38	0.00	37	0.06	26	0.20	67	0.04	34	0.09
Zak 1951		32	0.51	79	0.00	46	0.06	46	0.06	76	0.04	57	0.05
Average		1	0.64	32	0.00	11	0.08	4	0.43	66	0.04	27	0.13
Random 1		91	-0.14	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	43	0.13	68	0.04
Random 2		89	-0.02	71	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	30	0.18	55	0.06
Random 3		90	-0.03	55	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	25	0.25	51	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).