Cortot 1951

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		69	0.19	65	0.00	69	0.04	66	0.04	79	0.03	72	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		44	0.26	21	0.00	48	0.07	49	0.07	67	0.04	56	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		71	0.18	72	0.00	80	0.02	83	0.02	80	0.03	88	0.02
Bacha 2000		29	0.30	17	0.00	18	0.11	20	0.44	34	0.21	16	0.30
Badura 1965		70	0.18	32	0.00	73	0.04	70	0.04	88	0.02	74	0.03
Barbosa 1983		39	0.27	90	0.00	51	0.07	48	0.07	76	0.04	55	0.05
Biret 1990		37	0.28	13	0.01	41	0.06	42	0.14	66	0.04	49	0.07
Blet 2003		66	0.19	46	0.00	68	0.04	67	0.04	84	0.02	71	0.03
Block 1995		13	0.35	19	0.00	20	0.09	18	0.48	36	0.21	14	0.32
Blumental 1952		51	0.25	73	0.00	49	0.07	46	0.07	74	0.04	58	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		57	0.23	12	0.01	22	0.08	34	0.22	87	0.03	45	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		20	0.33	38	0.00	24	0.07	22	0.39	32	0.25	15	0.31
Bunin 1987		75	0.16	87	0.00	78	0.03	74	0.03	86	0.03	75	0.03
Bunin 1987b		81	0.15	84	0.00	79	0.02	81	0.02	82	0.03	82	0.02
Chiu 1999		53	0.24	33	0.00	65	0.05	61	0.05	77	0.04	62	0.04
Cohen 1997		11	0.36	26	0.00	14	0.13	10	0.62	11	0.61	3	0.61
Cortot 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Csalog 1996		68	0.19	47	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	81	0.03	86	0.02
Czerny 1949		1	0.42	1	0.34	1	0.33	1	0.74	17	0.67	1	0.70
Czerny 1990		74	0.18	69	0.00	63	0.06	53	0.06	87	0.02	77	0.03
Duchoud 2007		79	0.16	85	0.00	74	0.02	80	0.02	77	0.04	73	0.03
Ezaki 2006		8	0.38	15	0.01	13	0.13	11	0.61	51	0.08	21	0.22
Falvay 1989		54	0.24	75	0.00	60	0.05	64	0.05	78	0.04	63	0.04
Farrell 1958		7	0.38	25	0.00	7	0.14	5	0.66	20	0.38	5	0.50
Ferenczy 1958		22	0.32	18	0.00	30	0.08	27	0.31	31	0.50	9	0.39
Fliere 1977		21	0.32	45	0.00	19	0.09	19	0.44	67	0.04	29	0.13
Fou 1978		31	0.29	28	0.00	28	0.07	26	0.34	82	0.03	36	0.10
Francois 1956		26	0.30	67	0.00	29	0.07	24	0.36	29	0.25	17	0.30
Friedman 1923		72	0.18	82	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03
Friedman 1923b		76	0.16	88	0.00	85	0.03	75	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.12	77	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	82	0.03	87	0.02
Garcia 2007		64	0.21	89	0.00	62	0.06	60	0.06	79	0.03	67	0.04
Garcia 2007b		86	0.10	62	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Gierzod 1998		32	0.29	37	0.00	27	0.09	28	0.30	73	0.04	33	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		3	0.39	6	0.03	11	0.11	14	0.55	32	0.36	8	0.44
Groot 1988		58	0.23	74	0.00	52	0.05	63	0.05	86	0.03	68	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		6	0.38	9	0.02	15	0.15	12	0.60	51	0.06	25	0.19
Hatto 1993		48	0.26	78	0.00	54	0.07	50	0.07	85	0.03	59	0.05
Hatto 1997		33	0.29	41	0.00	32	0.09	29	0.27	63	0.04	37	0.10
Horowitz 1949		87	0.10	63	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	76	0.03	84	0.02
Indjic 1988		61	0.22	83	0.00	59	0.06	54	0.06	85	0.03	65	0.04
Kapell 1951		62	0.22	48	0.00	37	0.05	44	0.12	76	0.04	46	0.07
Kissin 1993		65	0.20	39	0.00	64	0.06	57	0.06	75	0.05	54	0.05
Kushner 1989		43	0.26	40	0.00	47	0.06	55	0.06	79	0.04	52	0.05
Luisada 1991		77	0.16	29	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	87	0.02	90	0.01
Lushtak 2004		25	0.31	52	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.13	73	0.04	48	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		15	0.35	5	0.04	4	0.15	8	0.63	70	0.04	27	0.16
Magaloff 1978		2	0.40	2	0.20	2	0.31	2	0.71	26	0.33	6	0.48
Magin 1975		80	0.15	86	0.00	75	0.02	77	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.02
Michalowski 1933		84	0.14	66	0.00	86	0.02	78	0.02	74	0.03	85	0.02
Milkina 1970		50	0.25	81	0.00	45	0.07	51	0.07	72	0.04	53	0.05
Mohovich 1999		36	0.28	16	0.00	25	0.07	30	0.25	45	0.06	30	0.12
Moravec 1969		56	0.23	76	0.00	61	0.05	62	0.05	83	0.03	61	0.04
Morozova 2008		41	0.27	35	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	83	0.03	66	0.04
Neighaus 1950		19	0.33	10	0.01	9	0.12	16	0.51	33	0.25	13	0.36
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.15	42	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	66	0.04	69	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.31	51	0.00	40	0.05	38	0.16	53	0.05	40	0.09
Osinska 1989		4	0.39	49	0.00	8	0.12	6	0.65	37	0.21	10	0.37
Pachmann 1927		63	0.21	64	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.03	70	0.03
Paderewski 1930		52	0.24	23	0.00	21	0.09	21	0.39	29	0.36	11	0.37
Perlemuter 1992		83	0.15	58	0.00	71	0.03	72	0.03	86	0.02	79	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		55	0.24	57	0.00	53	0.07	47	0.07	53	0.04	51	0.05
Poblocka 1999		46	0.26	70	0.00	39	0.06	39	0.16	60	0.05	39	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		14	0.35	7	0.02	10	0.11	9	0.62	33	0.32	7	0.45
Rachmaninoff 1923		38	0.28	55	0.00	33	0.06	35	0.21	56	0.05	35	0.10
Rangell 2001		5	0.39	3	0.13	3	0.30	3	0.69	9	0.57	2	0.63
Richter 1976		34	0.29	24	0.00	46	0.09	45	0.09	65	0.05	47	0.07
Rosen 1989		10	0.37	4	0.06	12	0.14	17	0.51	38	0.16	18	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		24	0.31	31	0.00	34	0.07	32	0.23	35	0.30	19	0.26
Rosenthal 1931		47	0.26	79	0.00	55	0.06	58	0.06	45	0.07	50	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		60	0.23	71	0.00	57	0.06	56	0.06	49	0.05	60	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		18	0.33	11	0.01	23	0.07	25	0.34	40	0.16	20	0.23
Rosenthal 1931d		49	0.26	20	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.15	25	0.30	22	0.21
Rossi 2007		59	0.23	68	0.00	58	0.05	65	0.05	36	0.24	32	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		16	0.34	43	0.00	16	0.16	13	0.57	29	0.23	12	0.36
Rubinstein 1952		45	0.26	34	0.00	26	0.09	23	0.38	65	0.04	31	0.12
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.30	59	0.00	36	0.05	33	0.23	86	0.03	43	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.30	36	0.00	35	0.05	36	0.20	61	0.04	41	0.09
Shebanova 2002		42	0.26	14	0.01	56	0.06	59	0.06	82	0.04	57	0.05
Smith 1975		12	0.36	8	0.02	5	0.15	7	0.63	21	0.47	4	0.54
Sokolov 2002		35	0.29	27	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.15	41	0.15	28	0.15
Sztompka 1959		17	0.33	44	0.00	17	0.15	15	0.54	46	0.07	24	0.19
Tomsic 1995		78	0.16	53	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	81	0.04	64	0.04
Uninsky 1932		30	0.30	54	0.00	31	0.08	31	0.25	72	0.03	42	0.09
Uninsky 1971		9	0.38	50	0.00	6	0.17	4	0.69	52	0.06	23	0.20
Wasowski 1980		40	0.27	22	0.00	38	0.05	37	0.19	56	0.05	34	0.10
Zak 1937		67	0.19	80	0.00	81	0.02	85	0.02	84	0.03	81	0.02
Zak 1951		73	0.18	60	0.00	82	0.02	82	0.02	83	0.03	83	0.02
Random 1		89	0.05	61	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	1	0.53	38	0.10
Random 2		88	0.08	56	0.00	77	0.02	79	0.02	21	0.31	44	0.08
Random 3		90	0.05	30	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	1	0.70	26	0.17

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).