Czerny 1949

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		2	0.81	1	0.32	1	0.31	3	0.67	2	0.64	3	0.65
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.59	23	0.01	59	0.05	66	0.05	34	0.15	52	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		49	0.58	59	0.00	33	0.06	31	0.28	34	0.22	35	0.25
Bacha 2000		79	0.40	32	0.00	73	0.06	50	0.06	78	0.03	71	0.04
Badura 1965		22	0.67	36	0.00	30	0.07	24	0.35	13	0.43	25	0.39
Barbosa 1983		65	0.49	69	0.00	69	0.05	67	0.05	59	0.05	67	0.05
Biret 1990		45	0.60	45	0.00	48	0.05	58	0.05	54	0.05	70	0.05
Blet 2003		28	0.65	87	0.00	46	0.04	69	0.04	35	0.19	53	0.09
Block 1995		72	0.46	57	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	63	0.04	75	0.04
Blumental 1952		60	0.52	29	0.00	27	0.11	32	0.28	15	0.31	31	0.29
Boshniakovich 1969		31	0.64	81	0.00	57	0.06	48	0.06	28	0.27	45	0.13
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.47	51	0.00	77	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.03	90	0.02
Bunin 1987		29	0.64	58	0.00	26	0.13	22	0.37	7	0.53	20	0.44
Bunin 1987b		33	0.63	70	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.37	7	0.53	19	0.44
Chiu 1999		77	0.45	52	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	87	0.03	79	0.03
Cohen 1997		88	0.15	66	0.00	88	0.04	78	0.04	68	0.04	76	0.04
Cortot 1951		15	0.71	33	0.00	21	0.09	20	0.40	5	0.62	17	0.50
Csalog 1996		85	0.34	80	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03
Czerny 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1990		1	0.84	2	0.16	3	0.26	2	0.70	2	0.69	1	0.69
Duchoud 2007		52	0.57	31	0.00	54	0.05	59	0.05	34	0.28	47	0.12
Ezaki 2006		9	0.74	40	0.00	15	0.07	15	0.46	10	0.47	18	0.46
Falvay 1989		76	0.45	82	0.00	85	0.04	72	0.04	72	0.04	73	0.04
Farrell 1958		58	0.54	30	0.00	60	0.05	63	0.05	49	0.06	65	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		44	0.61	50	0.00	29	0.06	37	0.17	15	0.35	36	0.24
Fliere 1977		8	0.75	26	0.00	18	0.13	14	0.47	33	0.28	26	0.36
Fou 1978		68	0.47	63	0.00	68	0.05	61	0.05	80	0.04	74	0.04
Francois 1956		10	0.73	24	0.00	20	0.09	18	0.44	5	0.58	14	0.51
Friedman 1923		64	0.51	91	0.00	24	0.08	28	0.30	6	0.57	23	0.41
Friedman 1923b		63	0.51	83	0.00	23	0.08	27	0.30	7	0.57	21	0.41
Friedman 1930		25	0.66	61	0.00	17	0.10	19	0.43	4	0.58	16	0.50
Garcia 2007		70	0.47	67	0.00	67	0.06	47	0.06	47	0.06	62	0.06
Garcia 2007b		82	0.39	46	0.00	66	0.06	49	0.06	17	0.25	48	0.12
Gierzod 1998		5	0.78	4	0.07	4	0.24	5	0.62	2	0.66	4	0.64
Gornostaeva 1994		19	0.68	22	0.01	28	0.07	40	0.15	21	0.36	37	0.23
Groot 1988		54	0.56	42	0.00	64	0.05	55	0.05	62	0.04	77	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		23	0.66	43	0.00	19	0.08	17	0.45	19	0.38	22	0.41
Hatto 1993		74	0.46	34	0.00	55	0.04	75	0.04	40	0.12	60	0.07
Hatto 1997		61	0.52	18	0.01	37	0.07	38	0.16	27	0.22	41	0.19
Horowitz 1949		36	0.63	17	0.01	41	0.04	44	0.08	14	0.50	40	0.20
Indjic 1988		66	0.48	84	0.00	49	0.05	68	0.05	49	0.06	66	0.05
Kapell 1951		16	0.70	16	0.01	8	0.14	9	0.53	6	0.47	15	0.50
Kissin 1993		42	0.62	71	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	35	0.16	51	0.09
Kushner 1989		20	0.68	49	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	34	0.24	43	0.14
Luisada 1991		55	0.56	47	0.00	65	0.06	53	0.06	69	0.04	63	0.05
Lushtak 2004		50	0.58	89	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.17	53	0.05	54	0.09
Malcuzynski 1961		17	0.69	3	0.09	12	0.13	4	0.62	2	0.69	2	0.65
Magaloff 1978		57	0.55	54	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	76	0.04	72	0.04
Magin 1975		62	0.52	78	0.00	63	0.05	64	0.05	40	0.13	55	0.08
Michalowski 1933		43	0.62	9	0.02	13	0.17	10	0.51	2	0.63	6	0.57
Milkina 1970		56	0.55	35	0.00	43	0.04	42	0.08	44	0.09	56	0.08
Mohovich 1999		41	0.62	74	0.00	47	0.05	62	0.05	49	0.06	69	0.05
Moravec 1969		46	0.60	10	0.02	40	0.05	39	0.16	12	0.46	32	0.27
Morozova 2008		35	0.63	19	0.01	14	0.07	30	0.28	11	0.35	29	0.31
Neighaus 1950		13	0.73	7	0.03	7	0.15	7	0.59	10	0.50	9	0.54
Niedzielski 1931		24	0.66	27	0.00	38	0.08	34	0.21	13	0.45	28	0.31
Ohlsson 1999		26	0.65	44	0.00	35	0.09	33	0.25	26	0.29	33	0.27
Osinska 1989		6	0.77	6	0.04	11	0.12	8	0.57	7	0.56	7	0.56
Pachmann 1927		78	0.43	77	0.00	81	0.03	87	0.03	66	0.04	82	0.03
Paderewski 1930		51	0.58	11	0.01	61	0.05	56	0.05	39	0.12	57	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.63	68	0.00	56	0.05	65	0.05	47	0.06	64	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.47	62	0.00	74	0.06	51	0.06	48	0.09	59	0.07
Poblocka 1999		18	0.69	85	0.00	22	0.15	21	0.39	15	0.40	24	0.39
Rabcewiczowa 1932		21	0.67	15	0.01	44	0.05	41	0.12	19	0.39	38	0.22
Rachmaninoff 1923		14	0.71	20	0.01	16	0.09	16	0.45	3	0.60	11	0.52
Rangell 2001		84	0.35	39	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.03	87	0.03
Richter 1976		53	0.56	76	0.00	62	0.06	52	0.06	32	0.23	46	0.12
Rosen 1989		47	0.59	72	0.00	50	0.04	76	0.04	33	0.24	50	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		38	0.63	48	0.00	39	0.05	36	0.17	9	0.56	30	0.31
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.40	86	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.38	73	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	65	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		59	0.53	21	0.01	42	0.04	43	0.08	29	0.28	42	0.15
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.39	65	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	67	0.04	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		75	0.45	55	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	41	0.13	61	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		86	0.33	25	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.32	53	0.00	87	0.04	77	0.04	60	0.05	78	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		67	0.47	37	0.00	75	0.05	54	0.05	52	0.05	68	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		7	0.76	13	0.01	6	0.14	12	0.50	5	0.53	13	0.51
Shebanova 2002		39	0.62	28	0.00	52	0.05	60	0.05	32	0.25	49	0.11
Smith 1975		27	0.65	64	0.00	51	0.04	74	0.04	42	0.11	58	0.07
Sokolov 2002		34	0.63	56	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.30	23	0.39	27	0.34
Sztompka 1959		4	0.79	8	0.03	2	0.24	6	0.59	2	0.62	5	0.60
Tomsic 1995		73	0.46	79	0.00	76	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03
Uninsky 1932		11	0.73	12	0.01	10	0.20	13	0.47	4	0.58	12	0.52
Uninsky 1971		12	0.73	14	0.01	9	0.13	11	0.51	5	0.56	10	0.53
Wasowski 1980		40	0.62	41	0.00	58	0.07	46	0.07	22	0.26	44	0.13
Zak 1937		30	0.64	60	0.00	34	0.07	26	0.31	35	0.20	34	0.25
Zak 1951		32	0.64	38	0.00	32	0.08	25	0.33	41	0.13	39	0.21
Average		3	0.80	5	0.07	5	0.31	1	0.75	16	0.41	8	0.55
Random 1		91	-0.15	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	75	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.10	75	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	51	0.04	85	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.12	88	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	58	0.05	86	0.03

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).