Pachmann 1927

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

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).