Paderewski 1930

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		47	0.24	55	0.00	58	0.04	71	0.04	74	0.03	79	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		71	0.18	64	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	81	0.03	61	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		9	0.38	3	0.09	3	0.15	7	0.63	36	0.23	11	0.38
Bacha 2000		40	0.26	6	0.04	15	0.09	35	0.32	28	0.27	18	0.29
Badura 1965		64	0.19	34	0.00	71	0.05	55	0.05	63	0.04	64	0.04
Barbosa 1983		56	0.22	76	0.00	48	0.06	51	0.06	72	0.04	49	0.05
Biret 1990		75	0.15	42	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Blet 2003		14	0.35	16	0.01	19	0.10	16	0.54	34	0.27	10	0.38
Block 1995		53	0.23	44	0.00	40	0.07	42	0.21	68	0.04	42	0.09
Blumental 1952		68	0.19	26	0.00	52	0.06	48	0.06	80	0.03	66	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		1	0.41	1	0.25	1	0.24	1	0.76	31	0.28	6	0.46
Brailowsky 1960		87	0.00	86	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	87	0.02	90	0.01
Bunin 1987		49	0.24	29	0.00	51	0.07	47	0.07	78	0.03	52	0.05
Bunin 1987b		54	0.23	77	0.00	53	0.04	61	0.04	86	0.03	74	0.03
Chiu 1999		52	0.23	87	0.00	63	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03	71	0.03
Cohen 1997		72	0.17	56	0.00	78	0.04	62	0.04	83	0.03	82	0.03
Cortot 1951		46	0.24	21	0.01	28	0.09	29	0.36	21	0.39	12	0.37
Csalog 1996		66	0.19	43	0.00	69	0.05	60	0.05	77	0.03	60	0.04
Czerny 1949		80	0.13	88	0.00	80	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.04	62	0.04
Czerny 1990		41	0.26	30	0.00	41	0.08	41	0.21	75	0.04	43	0.09
Duchoud 2007		74	0.16	74	0.00	79	0.04	63	0.04	69	0.04	63	0.04
Ezaki 2006		85	0.09	78	0.00	85	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.02	86	0.02
Falvay 1989		77	0.15	67	0.00	73	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03	72	0.03
Farrell 1958		82	0.12	61	0.00	74	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.02	88	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		86	0.05	45	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03
Fliere 1977		13	0.36	49	0.00	17	0.13	13	0.57	71	0.04	29	0.15
Fou 1978		50	0.24	23	0.00	39	0.09	38	0.28	67	0.04	40	0.11
Francois 1956		38	0.26	17	0.01	32	0.08	36	0.32	28	0.27	19	0.29
Friedman 1923		25	0.31	35	0.00	31	0.13	25	0.43	36	0.24	16	0.32
Friedman 1923b		22	0.32	41	0.00	30	0.09	24	0.44	39	0.23	15	0.32
Friedman 1930		19	0.33	15	0.02	20	0.10	18	0.53	31	0.24	14	0.36
Garcia 2007		18	0.33	20	0.01	18	0.11	15	0.55	27	0.31	9	0.41
Garcia 2007b		26	0.31	36	0.00	23	0.10	20	0.49	43	0.12	22	0.24
Gierzod 1998		39	0.26	80	0.00	42	0.09	40	0.21	63	0.05	41	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		62	0.20	33	0.00	62	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.03	83	0.03
Groot 1988		20	0.33	39	0.00	24	0.08	22	0.47	68	0.04	32	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		29	0.30	47	0.00	37	0.08	39	0.26	55	0.06	39	0.12
Hatto 1993		16	0.34	10	0.03	5	0.16	4	0.66	54	0.07	23	0.21
Hatto 1997		45	0.25	59	0.00	36	0.10	32	0.35	74	0.04	38	0.12
Horowitz 1949		34	0.27	27	0.00	46	0.06	52	0.06	84	0.03	59	0.04
Indjic 1988		15	0.35	9	0.03	4	0.15	3	0.68	43	0.14	17	0.31
Kapell 1951		36	0.27	68	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	59	0.06	44	0.08
Kissin 1993		3	0.40	2	0.17	2	0.25	2	0.75	21	0.56	1	0.65
Kushner 1989		17	0.34	57	0.00	21	0.10	17	0.53	59	0.05	27	0.16
Luisada 1991		30	0.30	18	0.01	27	0.09	21	0.48	67	0.05	28	0.15
Lushtak 2004		65	0.19	70	0.00	54	0.04	65	0.04	76	0.03	81	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		7	0.39	24	0.00	10	0.12	5	0.65	57	0.05	24	0.18
Magaloff 1978		28	0.30	25	0.00	14	0.12	14	0.56	44	0.12	21	0.26
Magin 1975		6	0.39	13	0.02	13	0.12	19	0.52	71	0.04	31	0.14
Michalowski 1933		12	0.37	12	0.02	22	0.10	23	0.45	13	0.44	7	0.44
Milkina 1970		73	0.17	82	0.00	72	0.05	56	0.05	84	0.03	56	0.04
Mohovich 1999		69	0.19	75	0.00	56	0.07	46	0.07	76	0.04	50	0.05
Moravec 1969		63	0.20	72	0.00	67	0.05	54	0.05	82	0.03	53	0.04
Morozova 2008		48	0.24	85	0.00	64	0.03	74	0.03	72	0.04	76	0.03
Neighaus 1950		11	0.37	4	0.06	6	0.15	6	0.64	21	0.41	5	0.51
Niedzielski 1931		21	0.32	19	0.01	26	0.10	28	0.41	52	0.05	30	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.32	46	0.00	29	0.09	31	0.35	71	0.04	36	0.12
Osinska 1989		55	0.22	28	0.00	65	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03	69	0.03
Pachmann 1927		2	0.40	7	0.04	9	0.10	9	0.60	13	0.53	3	0.56
Paderewski 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Perlemuter 1992		4	0.39	14	0.02	11	0.11	11	0.59	20	0.44	4	0.51
Pierdomenico 2008		8	0.38	5	0.05	8	0.12	12	0.59	8	0.55	2	0.57
Poblocka 1999		83	0.11	40	0.00	57	0.03	77	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		70	0.18	89	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	78	0.03	73	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		79	0.13	53	0.00	75	0.03	72	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Rangell 2001		33	0.28	63	0.00	33	0.07	34	0.34	54	0.05	34	0.13
Richter 1976		5	0.39	32	0.00	12	0.14	10	0.60	38	0.22	13	0.36
Rosen 1989		44	0.25	50	0.00	60	0.04	69	0.04	66	0.04	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.15	90	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.10	84	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.14	65	0.00	81	0.04	68	0.04	79	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		61	0.20	83	0.00	59	0.04	70	0.04	70	0.04	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.12	71	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		42	0.26	22	0.01	43	0.08	43	0.17	16	0.44	20	0.27
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.20	81	0.00	70	0.05	58	0.05	81	0.03	54	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.27	62	0.00	45	0.06	53	0.06	87	0.03	68	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		35	0.27	58	0.00	38	0.08	33	0.35	67	0.04	37	0.12
Schilhawsky 1960		43	0.26	52	0.00	47	0.09	45	0.09	71	0.04	46	0.06
Shebanova 2002		23	0.32	54	0.00	25	0.09	27	0.43	50	0.07	25	0.17
Smith 1975		67	0.19	31	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	65	0.04	47	0.05
Sokolov 2002		32	0.28	37	0.00	34	0.08	37	0.29	59	0.05	35	0.12
Sztompka 1959		10	0.38	8	0.04	7	0.13	8	0.61	36	0.30	8	0.43
Tomsic 1995		58	0.22	66	0.00	68	0.05	59	0.05	83	0.03	58	0.04
Uninsky 1932		31	0.29	48	0.00	35	0.11	30	0.36	50	0.05	33	0.13
Uninsky 1971		51	0.24	51	0.00	50	0.06	49	0.06	75	0.04	48	0.05
Wasowski 1980		27	0.31	11	0.02	16	0.09	26	0.43	50	0.06	26	0.16
Zak 1937		59	0.21	38	0.00	66	0.04	64	0.04	57	0.05	55	0.04
Zak 1951		57	0.22	69	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	80	0.04	57	0.04
Random 1		88	0.00	60	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	23	0.34	45	0.08
Random 2		90	-0.02	73	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	44	0.11	78	0.03
Random 3		89	-0.01	79	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	22	0.29	51	0.05

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).