Niedzielski 1931

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		71	0.23	36	0.00	59	0.05	59	0.05	63	0.04	66	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		50	0.29	29	0.00	46	0.05	60	0.05	48	0.07	52	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		1	0.48	1	0.46	1	0.46	1	0.74	12	0.63	1	0.68
Bacha 2000		61	0.25	46	0.00	60	0.05	50	0.05	56	0.05	53	0.05
Badura 1965		59	0.26	14	0.01	34	0.06	42	0.13	39	0.14	35	0.13
Barbosa 1983		22	0.35	74	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.07	59	0.06	51	0.06
Biret 1990		77	0.21	52	0.00	72	0.03	86	0.03	62	0.04	83	0.03
Blet 2003		7	0.40	10	0.02	9	0.09	8	0.55	7	0.56	4	0.55
Block 1995		30	0.34	73	0.00	21	0.10	24	0.34	51	0.06	33	0.14
Blumental 1952		37	0.32	38	0.00	15	0.11	17	0.44	35	0.22	16	0.31
Boshniakovich 1969		23	0.35	20	0.01	40	0.08	33	0.25	70	0.04	43	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		60	0.26	59	0.00	58	0.04	71	0.04	59	0.06	55	0.05
Bunin 1987		45	0.30	45	0.00	42	0.09	40	0.18	45	0.08	39	0.12
Bunin 1987b		43	0.31	63	0.00	41	0.07	38	0.20	48	0.07	36	0.12
Chiu 1999		40	0.32	42	0.00	36	0.06	37	0.20	74	0.04	44	0.09
Cohen 1997		72	0.23	75	0.00	62	0.05	48	0.05	59	0.04	68	0.04
Cortot 1951		85	0.15	65	0.00	85	0.04	66	0.04	86	0.02	84	0.03
Csalog 1996		39	0.32	13	0.01	24	0.07	27	0.32	26	0.25	18	0.28
Czerny 1949		87	0.05	67	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.01	89	0.01
Czerny 1990		32	0.34	56	0.00	25	0.07	25	0.32	46	0.08	28	0.16
Duchoud 2007		66	0.24	37	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	58	0.05	67	0.04
Ezaki 2006		81	0.18	69	0.00	84	0.04	67	0.04	81	0.04	60	0.04
Falvay 1989		52	0.28	27	0.00	29	0.06	39	0.19	67	0.05	42	0.10
Farrell 1958		64	0.25	87	0.00	81	0.04	72	0.04	74	0.03	75	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		83	0.16	85	0.00	82	0.05	58	0.05	62	0.05	58	0.05
Fliere 1977		3	0.42	8	0.02	4	0.20	7	0.55	51	0.06	23	0.18
Fou 1978		36	0.32	70	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	85	0.02	76	0.03
Francois 1956		82	0.17	77	0.00	83	0.04	69	0.04	84	0.02	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		20	0.36	12	0.01	13	0.14	16	0.44	24	0.47	9	0.45
Friedman 1923b		16	0.37	7	0.02	12	0.12	14	0.46	24	0.47	7	0.46
Friedman 1930		31	0.34	9	0.02	16	0.14	12	0.50	20	0.51	5	0.50
Garcia 2007		46	0.29	6	0.02	27	0.06	36	0.24	32	0.21	22	0.22
Garcia 2007b		68	0.24	44	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	50	0.05	70	0.04
Gierzod 1998		42	0.31	22	0.00	26	0.07	30	0.27	64	0.05	37	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		69	0.24	53	0.00	67	0.04	70	0.04	78	0.03	81	0.03
Groot 1988		10	0.39	23	0.00	17	0.11	13	0.48	46	0.06	27	0.17
Harasiewicz 1955		24	0.35	72	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	65	0.05	49	0.07
Hatto 1993		9	0.40	5	0.02	3	0.18	3	0.61	31	0.27	12	0.41
Hatto 1997		54	0.28	47	0.00	54	0.06	46	0.06	75	0.04	57	0.05
Horowitz 1949		11	0.39	3	0.07	5	0.17	6	0.57	10	0.59	2	0.58
Indjic 1988		13	0.39	16	0.01	6	0.11	5	0.57	32	0.29	11	0.41
Kapell 1951		17	0.36	4	0.07	8	0.10	21	0.36	41	0.09	24	0.18
Kissin 1993		21	0.35	50	0.00	33	0.06	29	0.29	54	0.07	32	0.14
Kushner 1989		34	0.33	76	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	68	0.05	47	0.07
Luisada 1991		12	0.39	15	0.01	18	0.15	10	0.52	30	0.27	13	0.37
Lushtak 2004		73	0.23	43	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	63	0.04	80	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.41	31	0.00	19	0.10	15	0.46	49	0.06	26	0.17
Magaloff 1978		25	0.35	19	0.01	53	0.05	47	0.05	62	0.04	62	0.04
Magin 1975		14	0.38	28	0.00	20	0.09	20	0.38	39	0.19	19	0.27
Michalowski 1933		53	0.28	66	0.00	61	0.05	61	0.05	49	0.07	50	0.06
Milkina 1970		78	0.20	89	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	71	0.04	77	0.03
Mohovich 1999		33	0.33	51	0.00	39	0.07	34	0.25	46	0.06	38	0.12
Moravec 1969		29	0.35	30	0.00	32	0.07	22	0.35	48	0.06	30	0.14
Morozova 2008		62	0.25	68	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03
Neighaus 1950		47	0.29	33	0.00	48	0.05	49	0.05	59	0.05	59	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ohlsson 1999		15	0.38	11	0.02	11	0.12	18	0.39	37	0.23	17	0.30
Osinska 1989		75	0.22	35	0.00	73	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.02	86	0.02
Pachmann 1927		51	0.28	41	0.00	65	0.05	53	0.05	44	0.11	48	0.07
Paderewski 1930		35	0.32	26	0.00	47	0.05	52	0.05	28	0.41	31	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.29	64	0.00	49	0.05	51	0.05	61	0.05	54	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		74	0.22	57	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.03
Poblocka 1999		58	0.26	88	0.00	66	0.04	62	0.04	78	0.03	71	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		80	0.19	78	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03	74	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		8	0.40	24	0.00	14	0.11	9	0.53	18	0.46	6	0.49
Rangell 2001		70	0.24	81	0.00	70	0.03	82	0.03	74	0.03	82	0.03
Richter 1976		2	0.46	2	0.10	2	0.17	2	0.63	23	0.50	3	0.56
Rosen 1989		28	0.35	54	0.00	31	0.07	26	0.32	71	0.04	41	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		44	0.30	62	0.00	35	0.06	41	0.15	30	0.41	20	0.25
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.22	34	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	26	0.44	29	0.15
Rosenthal 1931b		65	0.25	55	0.00	23	0.08	35	0.24	20	0.53	15	0.36
Rosenthal 1931c		38	0.32	40	0.00	22	0.09	19	0.38	17	0.50	10	0.44
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.19	79	0.00	57	0.04	74	0.04	34	0.17	46	0.08
Rossi 2007		84	0.16	32	0.00	74	0.04	65	0.04	42	0.17	45	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		63	0.25	80	0.00	79	0.04	68	0.04	71	0.03	73	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		57	0.27	82	0.00	64	0.04	64	0.04	59	0.04	69	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.29	71	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	72	0.03	64	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		67	0.24	58	0.00	69	0.03	83	0.03	57	0.05	65	0.04
Shebanova 2002		6	0.40	25	0.00	7	0.15	4	0.61	40	0.22	14	0.37
Smith 1975		86	0.10	60	0.00	86	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Sokolov 2002		41	0.31	61	0.00	51	0.05	55	0.05	65	0.04	61	0.04
Sztompka 1959		4	0.41	17	0.01	10	0.11	11	0.51	24	0.39	8	0.45
Tomsic 1995		55	0.28	48	0.00	63	0.04	75	0.04	52	0.06	56	0.05
Uninsky 1932		19	0.36	18	0.01	28	0.06	23	0.34	53	0.05	34	0.13
Uninsky 1971		56	0.27	83	0.00	55	0.04	63	0.04	73	0.04	63	0.04
Wasowski 1980		18	0.36	21	0.01	37	0.07	32	0.25	72	0.05	40	0.11
Zak 1937		26	0.35	39	0.00	30	0.07	28	0.32	41	0.15	21	0.22
Zak 1951		27	0.35	49	0.00	38	0.06	31	0.27	43	0.12	25	0.18
Random 1		90	-0.07	90	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	81	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		88	0.01	84	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	64	0.04	79	0.03
Random 3		89	-0.06	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	70	0.03	88	0.02

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).