Blumental 1952

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		31	0.39	54	0.00	31	0.09	27	0.41	13	0.52	19	0.46
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.42	26	0.00	19	0.10	16	0.57	16	0.58	12	0.57
Ashkenazy 1981		28	0.41	83	0.00	34	0.07	35	0.23	33	0.31	37	0.27
Bacha 2000		10	0.47	7	0.02	9	0.18	15	0.58	2	0.78	6	0.67
Badura 1965		58	0.33	33	0.00	50	0.05	62	0.05	49	0.05	65	0.05
Barbosa 1983		8	0.47	17	0.01	14	0.12	12	0.61	18	0.48	14	0.54
Biret 1990		61	0.32	79	0.00	68	0.05	71	0.05	56	0.05	71	0.05
Blet 2003		68	0.30	57	0.00	65	0.05	70	0.05	71	0.04	80	0.04
Block 1995		32	0.39	29	0.00	18	0.10	22	0.49	17	0.51	16	0.50
Blumental 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Boshniakovich 1969		47	0.35	51	0.00	62	0.06	56	0.06	61	0.05	68	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		4	0.49	2	0.09	4	0.23	8	0.68	5	0.74	4	0.71
Bunin 1987		63	0.31	42	0.00	56	0.06	54	0.06	43	0.13	49	0.09
Bunin 1987b		64	0.31	64	0.00	57	0.06	58	0.06	44	0.16	48	0.10
Chiu 1999		33	0.38	61	0.00	35	0.08	37	0.20	38	0.16	41	0.18
Cohen 1997		69	0.28	58	0.00	70	0.04	78	0.04	45	0.13	56	0.07
Cortot 1951		78	0.25	91	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	47	0.07	72	0.05
Csalog 1996		79	0.23	76	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03
Czerny 1949		74	0.26	77	0.00	74	0.05	61	0.05	51	0.06	64	0.05
Czerny 1990		11	0.46	12	0.01	5	0.13	5	0.75	15	0.70	3	0.72
Duchoud 2007		87	0.13	74	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.03	86	0.03
Ezaki 2006		17	0.44	6	0.02	21	0.08	26	0.44	24	0.51	18	0.47
Falvay 1989		14	0.45	11	0.01	22	0.10	18	0.52	26	0.34	21	0.42
Farrell 1958		80	0.23	37	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		35	0.37	18	0.01	26	0.09	25	0.45	8	0.74	10	0.58
Fliere 1977		13	0.45	22	0.00	13	0.12	14	0.58	38	0.25	24	0.38
Fou 1978		7	0.47	23	0.00	8	0.15	7	0.71	10	0.64	7	0.67
Francois 1956		85	0.18	63	0.00	85	0.05	69	0.05	78	0.03	82	0.04
Friedman 1923		70	0.28	39	0.00	73	0.06	51	0.06	64	0.05	73	0.05
Friedman 1923b		71	0.28	67	0.00	72	0.05	74	0.05	61	0.05	69	0.05
Friedman 1930		65	0.31	36	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.13	36	0.22	43	0.17
Garcia 2007		72	0.27	35	0.00	67	0.05	63	0.05	72	0.04	81	0.04
Garcia 2007b		51	0.34	80	0.00	53	0.07	49	0.07	27	0.28	45	0.14
Gierzod 1998		16	0.44	20	0.00	11	0.13	13	0.58	15	0.52	13	0.55
Gornostaeva 1994		67	0.30	56	0.00	69	0.05	66	0.05	60	0.05	70	0.05
Groot 1988		19	0.43	38	0.00	20	0.08	17	0.54	30	0.34	20	0.43
Harasiewicz 1955		18	0.43	62	0.00	17	0.14	23	0.48	42	0.15	38	0.27
Hatto 1993		2	0.52	3	0.03	2	0.27	2	0.79	7	0.71	1	0.75
Hatto 1997		5	0.48	40	0.00	7	0.16	6	0.73	9	0.59	8	0.66
Horowitz 1949		55	0.34	15	0.01	41	0.06	38	0.20	19	0.52	33	0.32
Indjic 1988		3	0.51	10	0.01	3	0.20	3	0.77	9	0.68	2	0.72
Kapell 1951		24	0.42	19	0.00	24	0.10	21	0.49	35	0.21	32	0.32
Kissin 1993		36	0.37	71	0.00	52	0.06	57	0.06	47	0.10	51	0.08
Kushner 1989		9	0.47	52	0.00	15	0.16	10	0.65	26	0.36	17	0.48
Luisada 1991		23	0.42	49	0.00	32	0.08	28	0.36	24	0.31	27	0.33
Lushtak 2004		44	0.35	75	0.00	60	0.05	67	0.05	53	0.05	66	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		15	0.44	13	0.01	12	0.13	11	0.64	18	0.50	11	0.57
Magaloff 1978		39	0.36	59	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	48	0.05	62	0.05
Magin 1975		26	0.41	84	0.00	27	0.09	31	0.32	33	0.35	29	0.33
Michalowski 1933		81	0.22	60	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	53	0.06	79	0.04
Milkina 1970		29	0.40	34	0.00	30	0.08	32	0.31	34	0.36	30	0.33
Mohovich 1999		30	0.40	16	0.01	29	0.07	29	0.35	36	0.31	31	0.33
Moravec 1969		12	0.46	14	0.01	10	0.18	9	0.67	6	0.63	9	0.65
Morozova 2008		48	0.35	4	0.02	36	0.06	42	0.14	72	0.04	53	0.07
Neighaus 1950		82	0.20	87	0.00	84	0.04	79	0.04	88	0.02	88	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.32	8	0.01	40	0.07	36	0.22	18	0.44	35	0.31
Ohlsson 1999		75	0.26	85	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	59	0.04	78	0.04
Osinska 1989		76	0.26	88	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	74	0.04	83	0.03
Pachmann 1927		83	0.19	68	0.00	86	0.05	72	0.05	77	0.04	77	0.04
Paderewski 1930		84	0.19	72	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	49	0.06	76	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		73	0.27	50	0.00	71	0.04	76	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		86	0.17	90	0.00	80	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.03	90	0.02
Poblocka 1999		27	0.41	47	0.00	28	0.08	30	0.33	34	0.29	34	0.31
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.30	44	0.00	59	0.05	68	0.05	46	0.07	57	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		46	0.35	25	0.00	33	0.08	33	0.28	23	0.39	28	0.33
Rangell 2001		77	0.26	78	0.00	83	0.04	80	0.04	87	0.02	87	0.03
Richter 1976		52	0.34	86	0.00	64	0.07	47	0.07	51	0.06	59	0.06
Rosen 1989		57	0.33	69	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.15	78	0.03	55	0.07
Rosenthal 1930		41	0.35	21	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	17	0.60	36	0.27
Rosenthal 1931		45	0.35	41	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.26	18	0.60	23	0.39
Rosenthal 1931b		59	0.33	27	0.00	46	0.06	59	0.06	17	0.58	40	0.19
Rosenthal 1931c		49	0.34	55	0.00	47	0.06	55	0.06	21	0.48	44	0.17
Rosenthal 1931d		62	0.31	65	0.00	39	0.06	39	0.20	12	0.57	26	0.34
Rossi 2007		88	0.06	89	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	80	0.02	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		37	0.37	30	0.00	38	0.07	43	0.14	32	0.21	42	0.17
Rubinstein 1952		40	0.36	45	0.00	54	0.08	46	0.08	57	0.05	60	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		20	0.42	46	0.00	23	0.08	20	0.50	32	0.23	25	0.34
Schilhawsky 1960		25	0.42	24	0.00	25	0.09	24	0.47	5	0.61	15	0.54
Shebanova 2002		22	0.42	5	0.02	16	0.11	19	0.50	32	0.34	22	0.41
Smith 1975		43	0.35	43	0.00	58	0.06	60	0.06	35	0.25	46	0.12
Sokolov 2002		53	0.34	32	0.00	63	0.06	50	0.06	44	0.10	50	0.08
Sztompka 1959		50	0.34	31	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.17	46	0.07	47	0.11
Tomsic 1995		56	0.33	70	0.00	66	0.05	73	0.05	67	0.04	75	0.04
Uninsky 1932		42	0.35	48	0.00	51	0.05	65	0.05	43	0.14	52	0.08
Uninsky 1971		6	0.47	9	0.01	6	0.14	4	0.75	6	0.66	5	0.70
Wasowski 1980		54	0.34	66	0.00	49	0.06	53	0.06	63	0.05	61	0.05
Zak 1937		38	0.37	73	0.00	61	0.05	64	0.05	54	0.05	63	0.05
Zak 1951		34	0.38	28	0.00	55	0.07	48	0.07	47	0.06	58	0.06
Average		1	0.59	1	0.64	1	0.63	1	0.88	48	0.07	39	0.25
Random 1		90	-0.07	81	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	38	0.15	67	0.05
Random 2		89	0.02	82	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	35	0.22	54	0.07
Random 3		91	-0.09	53	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	61	0.03	91	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).