Malcuzynski 1961

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