Bacha 2000

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		28	0.32	33	0.00	28	0.05	41	0.15	61	0.04	44	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		18	0.36	17	0.01	13	0.17	13	0.55	35	0.33	6	0.43
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.45	12	0.02	8	0.17	4	0.69	22	0.49	2	0.58
Bacha 2000		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Badura 1965		40	0.30	20	0.00	24	0.06	25	0.30	33	0.20	19	0.24
Barbosa 1983		24	0.34	70	0.00	31	0.07	27	0.28	51	0.07	30	0.14
Biret 1990		57	0.27	67	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03
Blet 2003		68	0.24	51	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	65	0.04	68	0.04
Block 1995		55	0.27	49	0.00	47	0.05	52	0.05	77	0.03	71	0.04
Blumental 1952		2	0.47	3	0.09	2	0.26	2	0.78	15	0.58	1	0.67
Boshniakovich 1969		38	0.30	50	0.00	53	0.06	51	0.06	76	0.04	55	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		20	0.34	43	0.00	20	0.10	20	0.39	29	0.39	8	0.39
Bunin 1987		71	0.24	40	0.00	73	0.04	67	0.04	83	0.03	80	0.03
Bunin 1987b		67	0.24	65	0.00	72	0.04	61	0.04	77	0.03	76	0.03
Chiu 1999		31	0.32	16	0.01	26	0.06	34	0.21	45	0.11	27	0.15
Cohen 1997		44	0.30	77	0.00	43	0.07	37	0.20	35	0.34	18	0.26
Cortot 1951		43	0.30	45	0.00	44	0.08	35	0.21	21	0.44	15	0.30
Csalog 1996		88	0.14	72	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.03	89	0.02
Czerny 1949		39	0.30	39	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.18	48	0.07	40	0.11
Czerny 1990		58	0.26	54	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	60	0.05	56	0.05
Duchoud 2007		63	0.26	44	0.00	60	0.04	71	0.04	82	0.04	69	0.04
Ezaki 2006		4	0.44	6	0.03	7	0.13	7	0.65	27	0.46	4	0.55
Falvay 1989		15	0.37	27	0.00	25	0.07	30	0.27	53	0.05	37	0.12
Farrell 1958		66	0.25	46	0.00	69	0.04	63	0.04	68	0.04	62	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		49	0.29	30	0.00	57	0.05	54	0.05	38	0.34	34	0.13
Fliere 1977		53	0.28	57	0.00	32	0.06	45	0.12	69	0.04	47	0.07
Fou 1978		12	0.39	9	0.02	12	0.20	14	0.54	35	0.27	10	0.38
Francois 1956		69	0.24	38	0.00	41	0.06	44	0.14	38	0.17	29	0.15
Friedman 1923		80	0.18	87	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1923b		82	0.18	88	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03	81	0.03
Friedman 1930		81	0.18	90	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.04	77	0.03
Garcia 2007		74	0.23	73	0.00	71	0.04	66	0.04	66	0.05	70	0.04
Garcia 2007b		62	0.26	48	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	76	0.04	72	0.04
Gierzod 1998		5	0.43	10	0.02	4	0.14	3	0.72	19	0.44	3	0.56
Gornostaeva 1994		73	0.24	34	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03	82	0.03
Groot 1988		33	0.31	60	0.00	45	0.08	42	0.15	58	0.05	42	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		27	0.33	11	0.02	22	0.10	19	0.40	65	0.05	33	0.14
Hatto 1993		7	0.41	2	0.11	3	0.16	10	0.59	35	0.20	12	0.34
Hatto 1997		11	0.40	22	0.00	14	0.17	17	0.49	47	0.06	24	0.17
Horowitz 1949		78	0.19	85	0.00	83	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04	63	0.04
Indjic 1988		8	0.41	36	0.00	10	0.20	11	0.58	46	0.09	20	0.23
Kapell 1951		16	0.36	15	0.01	17	0.23	16	0.49	43	0.09	21	0.21
Kissin 1993		47	0.29	68	0.00	51	0.05	55	0.05	58	0.06	53	0.05
Kushner 1989		6	0.43	8	0.03	6	0.12	6	0.65	36	0.24	9	0.39
Luisada 1991		70	0.24	78	0.00	70	0.04	60	0.04	77	0.04	58	0.04
Lushtak 2004		42	0.30	58	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.19	88	0.03	45	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		9	0.40	4	0.04	9	0.17	9	0.61	48	0.07	22	0.21
Magaloff 1978		34	0.31	56	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	78	0.03	49	0.05
Magin 1975		77	0.22	89	0.00	68	0.04	59	0.04	76	0.04	60	0.04
Michalowski 1933		85	0.15	86	0.00	78	0.03	75	0.03	62	0.05	67	0.04
Milkina 1970		14	0.38	26	0.00	15	0.14	12	0.56	42	0.17	13	0.31
Mohovich 1999		23	0.34	41	0.00	21	0.09	21	0.38	55	0.05	32	0.14
Moravec 1969		48	0.29	76	0.00	54	0.06	49	0.06	72	0.04	48	0.05
Morozova 2008		17	0.36	25	0.00	16	0.15	15	0.53	39	0.22	11	0.34
Neighaus 1950		52	0.28	84	0.00	49	0.07	47	0.07	77	0.03	57	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.25	14	0.01	56	0.05	57	0.05	51	0.05	51	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		36	0.31	18	0.01	19	0.10	22	0.34	76	0.03	41	0.10
Osinska 1989		75	0.23	19	0.00	59	0.03	73	0.03	77	0.03	74	0.03
Pachmann 1927		65	0.25	37	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	61	0.05	65	0.04
Paderewski 1930		60	0.26	5	0.04	23	0.10	29	0.27	36	0.32	16	0.29
Perlemuter 1992		87	0.15	71	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	81	0.03	85	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.26	55	0.00	74	0.04	64	0.04	66	0.04	59	0.04
Poblocka 1999		79	0.18	42	0.00	82	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02
Rabcewiczowa 1932		54	0.28	53	0.00	63	0.03	72	0.03	62	0.05	61	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		83	0.17	66	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.02	88	0.02
Rangell 2001		41	0.30	35	0.00	39	0.06	28	0.27	51	0.06	35	0.13
Richter 1976		51	0.29	63	0.00	65	0.05	58	0.05	82	0.04	64	0.04
Rosen 1989		50	0.29	61	0.00	62	0.03	74	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		76	0.22	75	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.04	78	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		45	0.30	23	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.21	26	0.44	14	0.30
Rosenthal 1931b		30	0.32	32	0.00	29	0.06	23	0.33	20	0.53	7	0.42
Rosenthal 1931c		32	0.32	13	0.01	37	0.06	43	0.15	55	0.05	43	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		61	0.26	52	0.00	52	0.05	53	0.05	27	0.30	38	0.12
Rossi 2007		86	0.15	79	0.00	88	0.03	82	0.03	78	0.02	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		21	0.34	24	0.00	18	0.13	18	0.47	35	0.16	17	0.27
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.31	64	0.00	38	0.05	32	0.22	75	0.03	46	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.40	21	0.00	11	0.17	5	0.66	63	0.06	23	0.20
Schilhawsky 1960		26	0.33	47	0.00	34	0.06	38	0.20	42	0.13	25	0.16
Shebanova 2002		19	0.35	82	0.00	30	0.06	24	0.32	55	0.06	31	0.14
Smith 1975		56	0.27	59	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	75	0.04	50	0.05
Sokolov 2002		25	0.34	31	0.00	36	0.05	36	0.20	46	0.07	36	0.12
Sztompka 1959		72	0.24	80	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	83	0.04	66	0.04
Tomsic 1995		22	0.34	28	0.00	33	0.07	31	0.25	62	0.05	39	0.11
Uninsky 1932		35	0.31	74	0.00	27	0.06	26	0.28	44	0.09	26	0.16
Uninsky 1971		13	0.38	7	0.03	5	0.13	8	0.64	33	0.33	5	0.46
Wasowski 1980		84	0.16	83	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	70	0.05	73	0.03
Zak 1937		46	0.30	69	0.00	61	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.04	75	0.03
Zak 1951		29	0.32	29	0.00	50	0.06	50	0.06	67	0.04	52	0.05
Average		1	0.50	1	0.43	1	0.43	1	0.80	79	0.03	28	0.15
Random 1		91	-0.10	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.01	62	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	41	0.14	54	0.05
Random 3		90	-0.08	81	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	60	0.03	90	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).