Czerny 1990

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		3	0.83	5	0.04	2	0.26	3	0.65	3	0.62	4	0.63
Anderszewski 2003		40	0.67	31	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	24	0.26	61	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		50	0.64	22	0.00	33	0.05	35	0.18	33	0.22	38	0.20
Bacha 2000		70	0.54	70	0.00	71	0.05	50	0.05	43	0.15	67	0.09
Badura 1965		56	0.62	48	0.00	62	0.04	66	0.04	36	0.23	66	0.10
Barbosa 1983		67	0.57	38	0.00	63	0.04	68	0.04	22	0.28	59	0.11
Biret 1990		23	0.70	37	0.00	24	0.07	22	0.32	18	0.34	25	0.33
Blet 2003		14	0.74	40	0.00	20	0.09	18	0.41	5	0.52	16	0.46
Block 1995		69	0.54	46	0.00	73	0.03	86	0.03	45	0.09	75	0.05
Blumental 1952		54	0.63	17	0.01	18	0.13	25	0.28	2	0.48	22	0.37
Boshniakovich 1969		52	0.64	65	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	69	0.04	81	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		57	0.61	63	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	64	0.04	85	0.03
Bunin 1987		74	0.53	85	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	48	0.06	87	0.03
Bunin 1987b		75	0.51	86	0.00	84	0.04	62	0.04	50	0.06	74	0.05
Chiu 1999		61	0.59	80	0.00	61	0.03	73	0.03	24	0.31	64	0.10
Cohen 1997		88	0.30	28	0.00	88	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.04	82	0.04
Cortot 1951		39	0.68	24	0.00	52	0.05	49	0.05	19	0.38	53	0.14
Csalog 1996		83	0.47	84	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	44	0.10	79	0.04
Czerny 1949		2	0.84	2	0.08	3	0.19	2	0.69	2	0.70	1	0.69
Czerny 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Duchoud 2007		63	0.59	32	0.00	67	0.04	60	0.04	40	0.15	70	0.08
Ezaki 2006		4	0.82	4	0.04	4	0.20	4	0.65	2	0.62	3	0.63
Falvay 1989		41	0.67	14	0.01	56	0.05	48	0.05	13	0.48	47	0.15
Farrell 1958		47	0.65	54	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	20	0.27	65	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		53	0.63	35	0.00	47	0.05	56	0.05	26	0.26	62	0.11
Fliere 1977		7	0.80	45	0.00	14	0.10	12	0.50	20	0.40	17	0.45
Fou 1978		59	0.59	29	0.00	40	0.04	44	0.09	52	0.05	72	0.07
Francois 1956		8	0.78	3	0.07	5	0.22	5	0.58	1	0.68	5	0.63
Friedman 1923		84	0.46	89	0.00	70	0.05	52	0.05	11	0.49	46	0.16
Friedman 1923b		85	0.46	90	0.00	65	0.04	61	0.04	12	0.48	52	0.14
Friedman 1930		62	0.59	52	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	13	0.46	41	0.17
Garcia 2007		73	0.53	87	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	48	0.06	80	0.04
Garcia 2007b		87	0.39	82	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	53	0.05	84	0.04
Gierzod 1998		12	0.74	59	0.00	16	0.10	16	0.46	15	0.44	18	0.45
Gornostaeva 1994		20	0.71	39	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.16	14	0.46	33	0.27
Groot 1988		44	0.66	43	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.10	33	0.30	43	0.17
Harasiewicz 1955		48	0.65	50	0.00	31	0.06	31	0.21	34	0.21	37	0.21
Hatto 1993		76	0.51	83	0.00	69	0.04	58	0.04	63	0.04	83	0.04
Hatto 1997		68	0.56	41	0.00	60	0.03	77	0.03	42	0.11	73	0.06
Horowitz 1949		66	0.57	78	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	65	0.04	86	0.03
Indjic 1988		72	0.53	56	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	65	0.04	78	0.04
Kapell 1951		16	0.73	11	0.02	12	0.11	13	0.50	8	0.47	14	0.48
Kissin 1993		15	0.74	57	0.00	23	0.09	19	0.41	14	0.45	19	0.43
Kushner 1989		5	0.81	30	0.00	7	0.11	8	0.54	5	0.57	11	0.55
Luisada 1991		30	0.69	74	0.00	25	0.07	28	0.25	26	0.38	27	0.31
Lushtak 2004		46	0.66	51	0.00	32	0.07	33	0.18	36	0.17	42	0.17
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.70	47	0.00	36	0.05	32	0.19	8	0.48	29	0.30
Magaloff 1978		33	0.69	21	0.00	35	0.05	36	0.17	11	0.44	32	0.27
Magin 1975		49	0.65	20	0.00	28	0.08	29	0.25	12	0.41	26	0.32
Michalowski 1933		65	0.58	71	0.00	55	0.05	54	0.05	21	0.39	50	0.14
Milkina 1970		24	0.70	23	0.00	22	0.08	24	0.29	25	0.33	28	0.31
Mohovich 1999		13	0.74	15	0.01	17	0.13	11	0.50	7	0.56	12	0.53
Moravec 1969		17	0.73	12	0.01	11	0.14	14	0.47	1	0.72	7	0.58
Morozova 2008		19	0.72	49	0.00	15	0.11	20	0.39	7	0.42	20	0.40
Neighaus 1950		29	0.69	79	0.00	21	0.09	21	0.32	31	0.24	31	0.28
Niedzielski 1931		28	0.70	8	0.02	27	0.08	30	0.21	2	0.59	24	0.35
Ohlsson 1999		36	0.68	16	0.01	45	0.04	45	0.08	36	0.17	56	0.12
Osinska 1989		6	0.81	13	0.01	13	0.11	9	0.53	5	0.58	10	0.55
Pachmann 1927		79	0.50	68	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	50	0.05	77	0.04
Paderewski 1930		34	0.69	60	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	12	0.37	49	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		22	0.71	44	0.00	26	0.07	23	0.31	14	0.41	23	0.36
Pierdomenico 2008		60	0.59	69	0.00	64	0.04	65	0.04	21	0.41	55	0.13
Poblocka 1999		37	0.68	73	0.00	44	0.04	41	0.11	34	0.18	48	0.14
Rabcewiczowa 1932		10	0.76	25	0.00	8	0.13	10	0.51	1	0.65	8	0.58
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.72	7	0.02	9	0.12	6	0.55	2	0.66	6	0.60
Rangell 2001		81	0.49	53	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	56	0.04	88	0.03
Richter 1976		77	0.51	66	0.00	86	0.03	74	0.03	60	0.05	76	0.04
Rosen 1989		21	0.71	9	0.02	10	0.11	15	0.46	13	0.49	15	0.47
Rosenthal 1930		55	0.62	58	0.00	58	0.03	76	0.03	10	0.50	57	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.50	76	0.00	72	0.03	72	0.03	19	0.42	60	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.47	72	0.00	76	0.04	63	0.04	21	0.33	63	0.11
Rosenthal 1931c		58	0.60	64	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	9	0.56	44	0.17
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.51	42	0.00	75	0.03	84	0.03	24	0.27	68	0.09
Rossi 2007		64	0.58	10	0.02	54	0.04	57	0.04	1	0.66	45	0.16
Rubinstein 1939		86	0.46	67	0.00	87	0.04	71	0.04	43	0.13	71	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		71	0.54	55	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	35	0.25	69	0.09
Rubinstein 1966		45	0.66	18	0.01	42	0.05	43	0.09	28	0.35	40	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		38	0.68	77	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.14	33	0.32	36	0.21
Shebanova 2002		26	0.70	36	0.00	43	0.04	40	0.11	22	0.32	39	0.19
Smith 1975		11	0.75	34	0.00	19	0.13	17	0.45	5	0.54	13	0.49
Sokolov 2002		42	0.67	26	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.15	24	0.38	34	0.24
Sztompka 1959		9	0.77	6	0.04	6	0.21	7	0.55	3	0.62	9	0.58
Tomsic 1995		51	0.64	61	0.00	59	0.03	75	0.03	18	0.44	58	0.11
Uninsky 1932		27	0.70	27	0.00	30	0.06	26	0.27	10	0.54	21	0.38
Uninsky 1971		43	0.66	62	0.00	50	0.06	46	0.06	31	0.32	51	0.14
Wasowski 1980		31	0.69	19	0.01	46	0.04	59	0.04	6	0.41	54	0.13
Zak 1937		32	0.69	75	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.18	28	0.27	35	0.22
Zak 1951		35	0.69	33	0.00	29	0.07	27	0.26	23	0.30	30	0.28
Average		1	0.88	1	0.47	1	0.47	1	0.77	5	0.59	2	0.67
Random 1		91	-0.19	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.11	88	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	71	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.09	81	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	72	0.03	90	0.02

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).