Indjic 1988

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		36	0.52	45	0.00	31	0.06	27	0.21	64	0.04	50	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		4	0.70	29	0.00	3	0.22	10	0.56	9	0.48	6	0.52
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.73	22	0.00	5	0.15	5	0.63	4	0.54	3	0.58
Bacha 2000		27	0.55	8	0.00	39	0.05	33	0.15	36	0.18	34	0.16
Badura 1965		46	0.48	5	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	32	0.30	39	0.12
Barbosa 1983		52	0.47	67	0.00	52	0.04	64	0.04	40	0.14	56	0.07
Biret 1990		19	0.58	23	0.00	29	0.08	23	0.28	39	0.16	26	0.21
Blet 2003		16	0.58	53	0.00	27	0.06	21	0.30	29	0.25	18	0.27
Block 1995		85	0.27	13	0.00	80	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04	72	0.04
Blumental 1952		31	0.53	15	0.00	56	0.03	84	0.03	34	0.15	58	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		57	0.46	68	0.00	47	0.05	55	0.05	34	0.21	46	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		58	0.46	54	0.00	69	0.05	62	0.05	74	0.04	68	0.04
Bunin 1987		47	0.48	69	0.00	62	0.06	47	0.06	38	0.19	43	0.11
Bunin 1987b		50	0.48	70	0.00	61	0.06	51	0.06	38	0.21	41	0.11
Chiu 1999		28	0.54	24	0.00	50	0.05	59	0.05	31	0.22	44	0.10
Cohen 1997		68	0.42	71	0.00	73	0.04	67	0.04	35	0.13	59	0.07
Cortot 1951		55	0.46	72	0.00	63	0.06	52	0.06	65	0.04	64	0.05
Csalog 1996		80	0.30	55	0.00	67	0.06	50	0.06	37	0.16	45	0.10
Czerny 1949		49	0.48	37	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	68	0.05	63	0.05
Czerny 1990		32	0.53	38	0.00	51	0.04	65	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.04
Duchoud 2007		18	0.58	73	0.00	14	0.11	20	0.32	17	0.38	12	0.35
Ezaki 2006		13	0.59	30	0.00	30	0.06	28	0.20	60	0.04	47	0.09
Falvay 1989		78	0.31	74	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	74	0.04	77	0.03
Farrell 1958		29	0.54	46	0.00	64	0.06	48	0.06	81	0.03	70	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		41	0.51	39	0.00	41	0.05	45	0.09	31	0.21	37	0.14
Fliere 1977		9	0.63	11	0.00	10	0.11	7	0.61	30	0.30	9	0.43
Fou 1978		38	0.52	25	0.00	26	0.09	29	0.20	49	0.06	40	0.11
Francois 1956		76	0.35	47	0.00	72	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		23	0.56	75	0.00	35	0.05	36	0.14	25	0.30	28	0.20
Friedman 1923b		22	0.57	76	0.00	34	0.05	34	0.15	23	0.31	25	0.22
Friedman 1930		24	0.55	19	0.00	28	0.07	26	0.22	20	0.41	16	0.30
Garcia 2007		43	0.50	56	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	42	0.11	57	0.07
Garcia 2007b		61	0.45	26	0.00	54	0.03	74	0.03	46	0.07	65	0.05
Gierzod 1998		11	0.61	27	0.00	13	0.13	9	0.57	24	0.34	8	0.44
Gornostaeva 1994		75	0.35	77	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	64	0.03	83	0.03
Groot 1988		70	0.38	78	0.00	75	0.05	60	0.05	84	0.03	76	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		44	0.49	28	0.00	21	0.07	24	0.25	41	0.11	33	0.17
Hatto 1993		1	0.99	1	0.96	1	0.95	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Hatto 1997		2	0.99	2	0.03	2	0.96	2	0.99	1	0.98	2	0.98
Horowitz 1949		45	0.49	57	0.00	24	0.06	31	0.19	32	0.32	19	0.25
Indjic 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kapell 1951		34	0.53	48	0.00	20	0.10	17	0.36	37	0.16	21	0.24
Kissin 1993		54	0.46	9	0.00	25	0.07	25	0.22	33	0.17	30	0.19
Kushner 1989		39	0.51	58	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	53	0.05	61	0.05
Luisada 1991		5	0.69	40	0.00	7	0.18	6	0.61	10	0.49	4	0.55
Lushtak 2004		8	0.64	16	0.00	16	0.09	18	0.36	38	0.14	24	0.22
Malcuzynski 1961		73	0.36	31	0.00	45	0.08	35	0.15	60	0.04	52	0.08
Magaloff 1978		67	0.42	49	0.00	38	0.04	39	0.14	72	0.04	55	0.07
Magin 1975		21	0.57	3	0.00	12	0.12	14	0.43	25	0.25	14	0.33
Michalowski 1933		66	0.43	14	0.00	32	0.06	30	0.20	38	0.27	23	0.23
Milkina 1970		56	0.46	79	0.00	43	0.04	40	0.13	64	0.05	51	0.08
Mohovich 1999		59	0.46	12	0.00	53	0.04	68	0.04	58	0.05	73	0.04
Moravec 1969		77	0.32	80	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	49	0.05	66	0.04
Morozova 2008		10	0.62	59	0.00	11	0.12	22	0.29	29	0.22	20	0.25
Neighaus 1950		14	0.58	50	0.00	23	0.06	12	0.49	49	0.07	31	0.19
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.44	51	0.00	33	0.06	37	0.14	24	0.29	27	0.20
Ohlsson 1999		6	0.68	32	0.00	6	0.16	4	0.63	10	0.45	5	0.53
Osinska 1989		60	0.45	7	0.00	65	0.08	46	0.08	84	0.03	60	0.05
Pachmann 1927		69	0.39	6	0.00	74	0.04	71	0.04	29	0.21	49	0.09
Paderewski 1930		62	0.44	81	0.00	66	0.05	57	0.05	40	0.12	53	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		65	0.43	60	0.00	68	0.05	63	0.05	59	0.04	67	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		84	0.28	17	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.03	79	0.03
Poblocka 1999		30	0.54	10	0.00	8	0.11	11	0.50	25	0.27	11	0.37
Rabcewiczowa 1932		72	0.37	82	0.00	70	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		42	0.51	83	0.00	59	0.05	54	0.05	59	0.04	69	0.04
Rangell 2001		87	0.25	33	0.00	81	0.04	72	0.04	58	0.04	75	0.04
Richter 1976		64	0.44	34	0.00	42	0.04	43	0.12	24	0.30	29	0.19
Rosen 1989		53	0.47	18	0.00	44	0.06	38	0.14	53	0.05	54	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		71	0.37	84	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	63	0.04	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.28	85	0.00	87	0.04	70	0.04	80	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.29	52	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	62	0.04	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.30	61	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.27	86	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	75	0.04	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		88	0.16	41	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	83	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		17	0.58	62	0.00	22	0.06	44	0.09	16	0.36	32	0.18
Rubinstein 1952		82	0.29	63	0.00	79	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		12	0.60	20	0.00	46	0.05	56	0.05	36	0.23	42	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		15	0.58	42	0.00	9	0.11	8	0.57	27	0.36	7	0.45
Shebanova 2002		25	0.55	35	0.00	19	0.13	19	0.33	26	0.31	15	0.32
Smith 1975		48	0.48	43	0.00	55	0.03	78	0.03	70	0.04	78	0.03
Sokolov 2002		35	0.52	36	0.00	36	0.05	41	0.13	46	0.06	48	0.09
Sztompka 1959		37	0.52	87	0.00	57	0.04	73	0.04	57	0.06	62	0.05
Tomsic 1995		74	0.36	88	0.00	82	0.05	61	0.05	82	0.03	71	0.04
Uninsky 1932		51	0.48	44	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.12	39	0.19	36	0.15
Uninsky 1971		40	0.51	64	0.00	18	0.09	13	0.44	21	0.38	10	0.41
Wasowski 1980		33	0.53	21	0.00	37	0.07	32	0.18	39	0.12	35	0.15
Zak 1937		20	0.58	89	0.00	17	0.09	15	0.42	27	0.27	13	0.34
Zak 1951		26	0.55	65	0.00	15	0.11	16	0.38	32	0.19	17	0.27
Average		7	0.68	4	0.00	4	0.16	3	0.71	48	0.08	22	0.24
Random 1		91	-0.13	66	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	54	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.02	90	0.00	89	0.03	87	0.03	5	0.50	38	0.12
Random 3		90	0.00	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	47	0.06	91	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).