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