Schilhawsky 1960

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		9	0.70	31	0.00	18	0.09	21	0.43	26	0.34	26	0.38
Anderszewski 2003		37	0.62	22	0.01	23	0.08	38	0.25	17	0.34	37	0.29
Ashkenazy 1981		41	0.61	21	0.01	28	0.09	24	0.40	29	0.29	34	0.34
Bacha 2000		81	0.40	82	0.00	73	0.04	74	0.04	84	0.03	81	0.03
Badura 1965		35	0.62	28	0.00	29	0.09	34	0.32	17	0.38	31	0.35
Barbosa 1983		65	0.50	36	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	41	0.14	60	0.07
Biret 1990		59	0.54	16	0.01	45	0.06	45	0.12	51	0.06	57	0.08
Blet 2003		23	0.67	62	0.00	36	0.10	29	0.36	20	0.33	32	0.34
Block 1995		70	0.48	34	0.00	49	0.07	48	0.07	38	0.15	53	0.10
Blumental 1952		77	0.44	41	0.00	56	0.04	72	0.04	50	0.04	77	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		36	0.62	23	0.01	44	0.07	44	0.15	21	0.36	40	0.23
Brailowsky 1960		73	0.46	65	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	46	0.07	63	0.05
Bunin 1987		11	0.69	12	0.02	10	0.13	15	0.45	3	0.57	10	0.51
Bunin 1987b		16	0.69	7	0.04	9	0.10	13	0.45	3	0.57	8	0.51
Chiu 1999		76	0.44	35	0.00	67	0.06	50	0.06	68	0.03	71	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.24	71	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	54	0.05	79	0.04
Cortot 1951		10	0.70	60	0.00	20	0.14	16	0.45	6	0.61	5	0.52
Csalog 1996		79	0.43	73	0.00	74	0.04	71	0.04	69	0.04	76	0.04
Czerny 1949		4	0.76	11	0.02	5	0.19	5	0.53	12	0.50	9	0.51
Czerny 1990		17	0.68	49	0.00	35	0.08	33	0.32	39	0.14	42	0.21
Duchoud 2007		45	0.60	48	0.00	34	0.07	36	0.27	11	0.42	33	0.34
Ezaki 2006		20	0.68	30	0.00	33	0.06	28	0.36	39	0.16	38	0.24
Falvay 1989		83	0.40	76	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	73	0.04	83	0.03
Farrell 1958		57	0.55	13	0.02	63	0.04	65	0.04	52	0.06	65	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		30	0.63	58	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.29	8	0.44	30	0.36
Fliere 1977		2	0.77	27	0.00	6	0.14	11	0.50	18	0.40	17	0.45
Fou 1978		68	0.49	84	0.00	69	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.05	74	0.04
Francois 1956		46	0.59	68	0.00	61	0.05	58	0.05	46	0.05	68	0.05
Friedman 1923		66	0.50	29	0.00	50	0.05	53	0.05	15	0.45	48	0.15
Friedman 1923b		63	0.51	74	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	14	0.46	44	0.18
Friedman 1930		47	0.58	26	0.00	46	0.09	46	0.09	17	0.42	43	0.19
Garcia 2007		56	0.55	61	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.17	6	0.53	36	0.30
Garcia 2007b		82	0.40	79	0.00	65	0.06	51	0.06	25	0.20	52	0.11
Gierzod 1998		5	0.74	9	0.03	7	0.11	6	0.53	12	0.46	13	0.49
Gornostaeva 1994		60	0.53	57	0.00	72	0.04	68	0.04	77	0.03	88	0.03
Groot 1988		49	0.58	50	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	49	0.05	80	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.69	37	0.00	13	0.09	7	0.52	14	0.44	14	0.48
Hatto 1993		51	0.57	15	0.02	15	0.11	30	0.36	10	0.57	20	0.45
Hatto 1997		42	0.60	19	0.01	12	0.09	22	0.42	6	0.53	15	0.47
Horowitz 1949		15	0.69	8	0.04	21	0.08	10	0.50	3	0.64	3	0.57
Indjic 1988		48	0.58	20	0.01	14	0.09	27	0.36	8	0.57	18	0.45
Kapell 1951		6	0.74	24	0.00	4	0.14	8	0.51	4	0.51	7	0.51
Kissin 1993		32	0.63	4	0.07	37	0.07	40	0.22	29	0.24	39	0.23
Kushner 1989		31	0.63	54	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	55	0.05	66	0.05
Luisada 1991		54	0.56	66	0.00	57	0.04	73	0.04	57	0.04	70	0.04
Lushtak 2004		21	0.67	5	0.05	11	0.12	14	0.45	16	0.35	25	0.40
Malcuzynski 1961		33	0.62	77	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	31	0.19	50	0.11
Magaloff 1978		61	0.53	43	0.00	64	0.04	60	0.04	59	0.05	72	0.04
Magin 1975		53	0.56	46	0.00	43	0.08	43	0.16	37	0.15	46	0.15
Michalowski 1933		43	0.60	52	0.00	26	0.08	23	0.42	7	0.50	16	0.46
Milkina 1970		62	0.53	42	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	48	0.06	67	0.05
Mohovich 1999		52	0.57	89	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	67	0.04	78	0.04
Moravec 1969		69	0.49	64	0.00	79	0.04	76	0.04	54	0.04	69	0.04
Morozova 2008		34	0.62	63	0.00	39	0.08	37	0.26	37	0.17	41	0.21
Neighaus 1950		18	0.68	18	0.01	16	0.08	9	0.50	15	0.40	19	0.45
Niedzielski 1931		27	0.65	10	0.02	22	0.10	19	0.44	3	0.59	6	0.51
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.66	59	0.00	27	0.08	17	0.44	18	0.39	24	0.41
Osinska 1989		38	0.61	67	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	56	0.05	62	0.05
Pachmann 1927		67	0.49	56	0.00	68	0.04	75	0.04	39	0.12	59	0.07
Paderewski 1930		50	0.57	81	0.00	58	0.04	70	0.04	33	0.18	54	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		25	0.66	32	0.00	31	0.09	32	0.33	13	0.41	27	0.37
Pierdomenico 2008		80	0.41	78	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03
Poblocka 1999		3	0.77	3	0.08	2	0.20	2	0.61	5	0.55	2	0.58
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.55	47	0.00	62	0.05	54	0.05	47	0.05	64	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		26	0.65	44	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.34	14	0.40	28	0.37
Rangell 2001		85	0.35	85	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	59	0.04	89	0.03
Richter 1976		8	0.71	6	0.04	8	0.11	3	0.55	2	0.64	1	0.59
Rosen 1989		64	0.51	55	0.00	71	0.04	64	0.04	85	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		44	0.60	39	0.00	51	0.05	52	0.05	14	0.47	47	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		72	0.46	75	0.00	78	0.04	61	0.04	33	0.18	55	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.45	83	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	31	0.21	58	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		58	0.55	14	0.02	59	0.04	63	0.04	25	0.32	51	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.44	17	0.01	77	0.03	78	0.03	36	0.16	61	0.07
Rossi 2007		87	0.29	72	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.04	82	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		86	0.32	86	0.00	87	0.03	89	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		84	0.36	33	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.04	90	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		71	0.47	53	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Shebanova 2002		39	0.61	25	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.22	42	0.13	45	0.17
Smith 1975		40	0.61	38	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	66	0.04	73	0.04
Sokolov 2002		28	0.64	87	0.00	30	0.12	25	0.39	12	0.46	21	0.42
Sztompka 1959		13	0.69	80	0.00	24	0.07	26	0.39	22	0.36	29	0.37
Tomsic 1995		74	0.45	90	0.00	83	0.04	67	0.04	65	0.04	75	0.04
Uninsky 1932		22	0.67	51	0.00	17	0.08	18	0.44	8	0.56	11	0.50
Uninsky 1971		7	0.73	2	0.13	3	0.18	4	0.55	4	0.59	4	0.57
Wasowski 1980		29	0.64	40	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.25	12	0.38	35	0.31
Zak 1937		19	0.68	45	0.00	25	0.08	20	0.44	21	0.39	23	0.41
Zak 1951		12	0.69	69	0.00	19	0.12	12	0.46	17	0.38	22	0.42
Average		1	0.79	1	0.23	1	0.22	1	0.66	21	0.36	12	0.49
Random 1		90	-0.06	70	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	23	0.35	56	0.08
Random 2		89	-0.03	88	0.00	89	0.03	88	0.03	8	0.46	49	0.12
Random 3		91	-0.16	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	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).