Friedman 1923

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		16	0.49	56	0.00	11	0.11	10	0.53	77	0.03	22	0.13
Anderszewski 2003		14	0.49	34	0.00	31	0.08	33	0.25	65	0.03	33	0.09
Ashkenazy 1981		15	0.49	57	0.00	28	0.07	20	0.36	73	0.03	30	0.10
Bacha 2000		62	0.31	58	0.00	70	0.05	64	0.05	86	0.03	58	0.04
Badura 1965		21	0.47	5	0.00	23	0.08	17	0.41	47	0.06	14	0.16
Barbosa 1983		58	0.34	59	0.00	63	0.05	60	0.05	84	0.03	69	0.04
Biret 1990		47	0.37	60	0.00	54	0.05	69	0.05	86	0.03	76	0.04
Blet 2003		31	0.43	23	0.00	26	0.08	30	0.28	60	0.04	27	0.11
Block 1995		66	0.29	11	0.00	24	0.07	39	0.17	53	0.04	40	0.08
Blumental 1952		29	0.44	17	0.00	16	0.08	19	0.37	35	0.15	10	0.24
Boshniakovich 1969		46	0.37	61	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.17	74	0.03	45	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		74	0.23	24	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	83	0.03	86	0.02
Bunin 1987		42	0.37	4	0.00	35	0.07	21	0.35	46	0.08	12	0.17
Bunin 1987b		49	0.36	6	0.00	36	0.08	23	0.34	46	0.08	13	0.16
Chiu 1999		37	0.40	35	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	80	0.03	61	0.04
Cohen 1997		86	0.06	62	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01
Cortot 1951		19	0.47	63	0.00	17	0.07	16	0.44	62	0.05	20	0.15
Csalog 1996		88	-0.01	64	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	88	0.02	89	0.01
Czerny 1949		12	0.51	65	0.00	6	0.29	6	0.57	28	0.30	6	0.41
Czerny 1990		23	0.46	66	0.00	15	0.09	11	0.49	52	0.05	15	0.16
Duchoud 2007		38	0.40	36	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.16	50	0.05	34	0.09
Ezaki 2006		10	0.51	25	0.00	18	0.07	13	0.46	67	0.04	21	0.14
Falvay 1989		85	0.07	13	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	88	0.02	88	0.01
Farrell 1958		32	0.43	67	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	83	0.03	54	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		55	0.35	18	0.00	37	0.07	44	0.14	55	0.05	39	0.08
Fliere 1977		26	0.45	3	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.22	83	0.03	37	0.08
Fou 1978		71	0.26	68	0.00	74	0.05	74	0.05	86	0.03	63	0.04
Francois 1956		63	0.30	69	0.00	53	0.06	53	0.06	86	0.02	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1923b		1	1.00	1	1.00	1	0.99	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Friedman 1930		2	0.80	2	0.00	2	0.73	2	0.81	1	0.78	2	0.79
Garcia 2007		35	0.41	70	0.00	49	0.05	68	0.05	78	0.03	72	0.04
Garcia 2007b		27	0.45	19	0.00	30	0.07	31	0.27	75	0.03	36	0.09
Gierzod 1998		24	0.46	71	0.00	19	0.09	18	0.40	67	0.04	23	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		45	0.37	37	0.00	27	0.08	36	0.22	78	0.03	41	0.08
Groot 1988		70	0.26	38	0.00	64	0.06	57	0.06	66	0.04	57	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		25	0.45	72	0.00	41	0.06	35	0.23	69	0.03	42	0.08
Hatto 1993		5	0.56	39	0.00	21	0.09	27	0.29	70	0.04	29	0.11
Hatto 1997		3	0.58	73	0.00	9	0.10	22	0.34	30	0.21	9	0.27
Horowitz 1949		53	0.35	74	0.00	61	0.08	46	0.08	72	0.03	56	0.05
Indjic 1988		4	0.56	75	0.00	20	0.07	25	0.30	36	0.14	11	0.20
Kapell 1951		48	0.36	76	0.00	33	0.06	24	0.31	51	0.05	24	0.12
Kissin 1993		69	0.27	40	0.00	67	0.05	71	0.05	70	0.03	68	0.04
Kushner 1989		39	0.39	20	0.00	55	0.07	50	0.07	71	0.04	55	0.05
Luisada 1991		28	0.44	12	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.14	83	0.03	47	0.06
Lushtak 2004		33	0.42	41	0.00	50	0.05	65	0.05	68	0.04	74	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.37	77	0.00	12	0.09	32	0.27	81	0.03	32	0.09
Magaloff 1978		64	0.30	78	0.00	66	0.05	67	0.05	73	0.04	62	0.04
Magin 1975		34	0.41	79	0.00	25	0.09	26	0.29	73	0.03	31	0.09
Michalowski 1933		22	0.47	80	0.00	10	0.10	8	0.53	32	0.29	7	0.39
Milkina 1970		73	0.24	81	0.00	73	0.05	73	0.05	87	0.03	65	0.04
Mohovich 1999		59	0.33	42	0.00	60	0.05	63	0.05	71	0.04	75	0.04
Moravec 1969		78	0.20	43	0.00	71	0.06	56	0.06	70	0.03	59	0.04
Morozova 2008		18	0.47	82	0.00	29	0.07	29	0.29	66	0.04	28	0.11
Neighaus 1950		8	0.54	14	0.00	7	0.14	9	0.53	69	0.04	19	0.15
Niedzielski 1931		41	0.37	44	0.00	34	0.07	38	0.21	43	0.11	16	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.43	45	0.00	39	0.10	34	0.24	79	0.03	38	0.08
Osinska 1989		40	0.38	26	0.00	47	0.07	51	0.07	57	0.04	51	0.05
Pachmann 1927		79	0.20	83	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Paderewski 1930		60	0.32	9	0.00	51	0.05	62	0.05	66	0.03	67	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		43	0.37	84	0.00	40	0.06	42	0.15	76	0.03	43	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.14	46	0.00	80	0.04	78	0.04	79	0.03	78	0.03
Poblocka 1999		57	0.34	10	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	86	0.03	52	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		56	0.35	7	0.00	52	0.07	49	0.07	67	0.03	53	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		9	0.53	47	0.00	8	0.10	7	0.56	41	0.13	8	0.27
Rangell 2001		84	0.14	48	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Richter 1976		77	0.22	21	0.00	72	0.04	77	0.04	82	0.02	81	0.03
Rosen 1989		20	0.47	27	0.00	13	0.09	14	0.46	50	0.05	18	0.15
Rosenthal 1930		61	0.32	28	0.00	56	0.05	72	0.05	61	0.04	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.22	49	0.00	77	0.05	70	0.05	70	0.03	70	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.22	50	0.00	76	0.04	79	0.04	85	0.02	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		72	0.26	51	0.00	68	0.06	54	0.06	81	0.03	77	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.17	15	0.00	81	0.04	76	0.04	78	0.03	83	0.03
Rossi 2007		68	0.28	22	0.00	65	0.05	66	0.05	46	0.07	48	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.19	85	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		90	-0.05	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.02	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1966		67	0.29	16	0.00	75	0.05	75	0.05	77	0.04	71	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		13	0.50	87	0.00	22	0.09	15	0.45	53	0.05	17	0.15
Shebanova 2002		65	0.29	88	0.00	69	0.08	47	0.08	76	0.04	49	0.06
Smith 1975		36	0.41	29	0.00	32	0.08	28	0.29	57	0.04	26	0.11
Sokolov 2002		51	0.36	8	0.00	46	0.06	58	0.06	71	0.03	60	0.04
Sztompka 1959		6	0.56	30	0.00	5	0.18	5	0.59	31	0.28	5	0.41
Tomsic 1995		82	0.15	52	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03
Uninsky 1932		7	0.56	31	0.00	3	0.35	3	0.64	11	0.53	3	0.58
Uninsky 1971		17	0.48	53	0.00	4	0.19	4	0.59	26	0.34	4	0.45
Wasowski 1980		54	0.35	54	0.00	59	0.06	52	0.06	82	0.04	50	0.05
Zak 1937		50	0.36	89	0.00	58	0.05	61	0.05	85	0.03	64	0.04
Zak 1951		52	0.35	90	0.00	57	0.06	55	0.06	86	0.03	66	0.04
Average		11	0.51	91	0.00	14	0.09	12	0.49	86	0.03	25	0.12
Random 1		91	-0.07	55	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	14	0.43	35	0.09
Random 2		89	-0.04	32	0.00	87	0.02	85	0.02	18	0.23	44	0.07
Random 3		87	0.01	33	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	20	0.27	46	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).