Rabcewiczowa 1932

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