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		42	0.33	64	0.00	38	0.08	37	0.25	26	0.35	30	0.30
Anderszewski 2003		61	0.29	69	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.13	46	0.07	40	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		80	0.20	39	0.00	81	0.04	71	0.04	68	0.05	75	0.04
Bacha 2000		67	0.28	55	0.00	63	0.05	61	0.05	71	0.03	64	0.04
Badura 1965		78	0.22	52	0.00	62	0.05	62	0.05	70	0.03	74	0.04
Barbosa 1983		34	0.34	46	0.00	27	0.10	24	0.45	41	0.17	32	0.28
Biret 1990		3	0.47	5	0.04	7	0.19	5	0.69	7	0.68	4	0.68
Blet 2003		83	0.18	88	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03	83	0.03
Block 1995		32	0.35	40	0.00	33	0.11	28	0.41	37	0.21	31	0.29
Blumental 1952		56	0.30	45	0.00	47	0.07	45	0.07	67	0.05	53	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		51	0.31	77	0.00	48	0.07	48	0.07	58	0.05	54	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		49	0.31	86	0.00	56	0.06	49	0.06	44	0.11	44	0.08
Bunin 1987		54	0.31	25	0.00	60	0.07	47	0.07	46	0.07	49	0.07
Bunin 1987b		58	0.30	20	0.00	61	0.06	50	0.06	57	0.05	58	0.05
Chiu 1999		60	0.29	74	0.00	52	0.06	54	0.06	48	0.06	50	0.06
Cohen 1997		12	0.41	32	0.00	14	0.11	14	0.56	3	0.72	9	0.63
Cortot 1951		30	0.35	11	0.01	24	0.12	33	0.32	9	0.62	23	0.45
Csalog 1996		70	0.27	81	0.00	73	0.04	69	0.04	63	0.05	71	0.04
Czerny 1949		2	0.48	7	0.02	3	0.21	3	0.70	8	0.75	3	0.72
Czerny 1990		57	0.30	66	0.00	58	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.05	61	0.05
Duchoud 2007		68	0.28	67	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	67	0.04	85	0.03
Ezaki 2006		4	0.46	2	0.10	2	0.22	8	0.65	8	0.65	5	0.65
Falvay 1989		28	0.36	15	0.01	39	0.08	39	0.22	60	0.05	39	0.10
Farrell 1958		21	0.38	62	0.00	22	0.10	23	0.47	13	0.48	22	0.47
Ferenczy 1958		33	0.34	43	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.26	14	0.69	25	0.42
Fliere 1977		41	0.33	28	0.00	32	0.09	34	0.31	66	0.04	38	0.11
Fou 1978		43	0.33	73	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.13	53	0.05	45	0.08
Francois 1956		25	0.37	23	0.00	17	0.11	20	0.51	12	0.67	13	0.58
Friedman 1923		85	0.14	79	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1923b		86	0.14	75	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.03
Friedman 1930		77	0.23	36	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	87	0.03	84	0.03
Garcia 2007		48	0.31	38	0.00	49	0.06	57	0.06	38	0.16	41	0.10
Garcia 2007b		64	0.29	61	0.00	57	0.05	63	0.05	55	0.05	63	0.05
Gierzod 1998		29	0.36	47	0.00	31	0.11	27	0.42	39	0.15	34	0.25
Gornostaeva 1994		1	0.56	1	0.49	1	0.48	1	0.85	2	0.81	1	0.83
Groot 1988		46	0.32	16	0.00	36	0.10	38	0.23	69	0.04	42	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		13	0.41	3	0.09	4	0.18	11	0.61	25	0.42	21	0.51
Hatto 1993		62	0.29	82	0.00	59	0.06	52	0.06	77	0.04	62	0.05
Hatto 1997		16	0.40	27	0.00	18	0.10	17	0.55	26	0.31	26	0.41
Horowitz 1949		79	0.22	65	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	58	0.04	80	0.03
Indjic 1988		71	0.26	90	0.00	66	0.05	66	0.05	81	0.04	70	0.04
Kapell 1951		23	0.37	44	0.00	35	0.12	35	0.31	64	0.05	37	0.12
Kissin 1993		87	0.12	83	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	81	0.03	87	0.02
Kushner 1989		31	0.35	48	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.18	73	0.04	46	0.08
Luisada 1991		74	0.25	63	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	75	0.04	65	0.04
Lushtak 2004		27	0.36	89	0.00	26	0.07	25	0.45	25	0.35	27	0.40
Malcuzynski 1961		47	0.32	78	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.11	55	0.05	47	0.07
Magaloff 1978		19	0.39	8	0.02	25	0.08	32	0.33	43	0.12	35	0.20
Magin 1975		76	0.24	80	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	63	0.05	66	0.04
Michalowski 1933		81	0.20	50	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	66	0.05	69	0.04
Milkina 1970		20	0.38	35	0.00	16	0.11	12	0.61	25	0.48	16	0.54
Mohovich 1999		11	0.42	22	0.00	9	0.15	10	0.64	18	0.53	12	0.58
Moravec 1969		24	0.37	33	0.00	34	0.12	30	0.39	38	0.19	33	0.27
Morozova 2008		38	0.34	53	0.00	45	0.06	51	0.06	48	0.06	52	0.06
Neighaus 1950		14	0.41	13	0.01	19	0.10	15	0.56	13	0.49	18	0.52
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.19	76	0.00	80	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		63	0.29	37	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.03	82	0.03
Osinska 1989		5	0.46	18	0.00	10	0.15	2	0.72	21	0.50	11	0.60
Pachmann 1927		65	0.28	41	0.00	74	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.05	68	0.04
Paderewski 1930		84	0.18	84	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.03	81	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		52	0.31	51	0.00	55	0.06	58	0.06	65	0.05	56	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.30	71	0.00	68	0.03	81	0.03	71	0.04	76	0.03
Poblocka 1999		36	0.34	54	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.15	54	0.06	43	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.34	72	0.00	30	0.10	31	0.37	31	0.31	28	0.34
Rangell 2001		26	0.37	14	0.01	20	0.11	21	0.51	16	0.54	17	0.52
Richter 1976		73	0.25	49	0.00	79	0.04	73	0.04	76	0.04	67	0.04
Rosen 1989		18	0.39	58	0.00	23	0.10	22	0.50	32	0.20	29	0.32
Rosenthal 1930		7	0.44	4	0.06	8	0.18	4	0.70	6	0.77	2	0.73
Rosenthal 1931		39	0.34	26	0.00	29	0.10	26	0.44	9	0.72	15	0.56
Rosenthal 1931b		44	0.32	24	0.00	28	0.08	29	0.40	10	0.67	19	0.52
Rosenthal 1931c		15	0.40	10	0.02	12	0.16	13	0.59	8	0.64	10	0.61
Rosenthal 1931d		22	0.37	12	0.01	13	0.15	16	0.55	5	0.76	6	0.65
Rossi 2007		45	0.32	29	0.00	65	0.05	64	0.05	14	0.47	36	0.15
Rubinstein 1939		17	0.39	9	0.02	15	0.11	18	0.54	14	0.49	20	0.51
Rubinstein 1952		9	0.43	19	0.00	5	0.19	6	0.69	9	0.60	7	0.64
Rubinstein 1966		6	0.44	6	0.02	6	0.18	7	0.68	19	0.47	14	0.57
Schilhawsky 1960		69	0.27	60	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	59	0.05	72	0.04
Shebanova 2002		66	0.28	59	0.00	71	0.05	65	0.05	76	0.05	60	0.05
Smith 1975		8	0.44	30	0.00	11	0.17	9	0.64	6	0.63	8	0.63
Sokolov 2002		35	0.34	68	0.00	51	0.06	59	0.06	52	0.05	57	0.05
Sztompka 1959		40	0.33	21	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	54	0.06	51	0.06
Tomsic 1995		53	0.31	31	0.00	54	0.06	55	0.06	64	0.05	59	0.05
Uninsky 1932		50	0.31	34	0.00	50	0.06	53	0.06	77	0.03	73	0.04
Uninsky 1971		10	0.42	17	0.00	21	0.10	19	0.53	31	0.35	24	0.43
Wasowski 1980		55	0.31	57	0.00	53	0.06	56	0.06	74	0.05	55	0.05
Zak 1937		75	0.24	85	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	73	0.04	78	0.03
Zak 1951		72	0.25	70	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	82	0.03	79	0.03
Random 1		90	-0.05	42	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	57	0.04	88	0.02
Random 2		88	0.04	56	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	30	0.23	48	0.07
Random 3		89	-0.02	87	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	46	0.05	89	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).