Cortot 1951

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		70	0.19	65	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	80	0.03	73	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		45	0.26	25	0.00	49	0.07	50	0.07	68	0.04	57	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		72	0.18	71	0.00	81	0.02	84	0.02	81	0.03	89	0.02
Bacha 2000		30	0.30	18	0.00	19	0.11	21	0.44	35	0.21	16	0.30
Badura 1965		71	0.18	29	0.00	74	0.03	71	0.03	89	0.02	88	0.02
Barbosa 1983		40	0.27	91	0.00	52	0.07	49	0.07	77	0.04	56	0.05
Biret 1990		38	0.28	12	0.01	42	0.05	43	0.14	67	0.04	50	0.07
Blet 2003		67	0.19	42	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	85	0.02	72	0.03
Block 1995		14	0.35	20	0.00	21	0.09	19	0.48	37	0.21	14	0.32
Blumental 1952		52	0.25	76	0.00	50	0.07	47	0.07	75	0.04	59	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		58	0.23	11	0.01	23	0.08	35	0.22	88	0.03	46	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		21	0.33	39	0.00	25	0.07	23	0.39	33	0.25	15	0.31
Bunin 1987		76	0.16	88	0.00	79	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.03	75	0.03
Bunin 1987b		82	0.15	85	0.00	80	0.02	82	0.02	83	0.03	82	0.02
Chiu 1999		54	0.24	35	0.00	66	0.05	62	0.05	78	0.04	62	0.04
Cohen 1997		12	0.36	31	0.00	15	0.13	11	0.62	12	0.61	3	0.61
Cortot 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Csalog 1996		69	0.19	43	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	82	0.03	86	0.02
Czerny 1949		2	0.42	2	0.24	2	0.33	2	0.74	18	0.67	1	0.70
Czerny 1990		75	0.18	69	0.00	64	0.06	54	0.06	88	0.02	77	0.03
Duchoud 2007		80	0.16	86	0.00	75	0.02	81	0.02	78	0.04	74	0.03
Ezaki 2006		9	0.38	15	0.01	14	0.13	12	0.61	52	0.08	21	0.22
Falvay 1989		55	0.24	80	0.00	61	0.05	65	0.05	79	0.04	63	0.04
Farrell 1958		8	0.38	24	0.00	8	0.14	6	0.66	21	0.38	5	0.50
Ferenczy 1958		23	0.32	19	0.00	31	0.08	28	0.31	32	0.50	9	0.39
Fliere 1977		22	0.32	63	0.00	20	0.09	20	0.44	68	0.04	30	0.13
Fou 1978		32	0.29	26	0.00	29	0.07	27	0.34	83	0.03	37	0.10
Francois 1956		27	0.30	67	0.00	30	0.07	25	0.36	30	0.25	17	0.30
Friedman 1923		73	0.18	83	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.03
Friedman 1923b		77	0.16	89	0.00	86	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.03	76	0.03
Friedman 1930		86	0.12	77	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.03	87	0.02
Garcia 2007		65	0.21	90	0.00	63	0.06	61	0.06	80	0.03	66	0.04
Garcia 2007b		87	0.10	61	0.00	71	0.03	74	0.03	87	0.02	90	0.02
Gierzod 1998		33	0.29	34	0.00	28	0.09	29	0.30	74	0.04	34	0.11
Gornostaeva 1994		4	0.39	17	0.00	12	0.11	15	0.55	33	0.36	8	0.44
Groot 1988		59	0.23	72	0.00	53	0.05	64	0.05	87	0.03	67	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.38	10	0.01	16	0.14	13	0.60	52	0.06	25	0.19
Hatto 1993		49	0.26	78	0.00	55	0.07	51	0.07	86	0.03	60	0.05
Hatto 1997		34	0.29	37	0.00	33	0.09	30	0.27	64	0.04	38	0.10
Horowitz 1949		88	0.10	64	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	77	0.03	84	0.02
Indjic 1988		62	0.22	84	0.00	60	0.06	55	0.06	86	0.03	64	0.04
Kapell 1951		63	0.22	52	0.00	38	0.05	45	0.12	77	0.04	47	0.07
Kissin 1993		66	0.20	36	0.00	65	0.06	58	0.06	76	0.04	55	0.05
Kushner 1989		44	0.26	46	0.00	48	0.06	56	0.06	80	0.04	53	0.05
Luisada 1991		78	0.16	30	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Lushtak 2004		26	0.31	49	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.13	74	0.04	49	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		16	0.35	5	0.04	5	0.15	9	0.63	71	0.04	27	0.16
Magaloff 1978		3	0.40	3	0.18	3	0.30	3	0.71	27	0.33	6	0.48
Magin 1975		81	0.15	87	0.00	76	0.02	78	0.02	88	0.02	80	0.02
Michalowski 1933		85	0.14	66	0.00	87	0.02	79	0.02	75	0.03	85	0.02
Milkina 1970		51	0.25	81	0.00	46	0.06	52	0.06	73	0.04	54	0.05
Mohovich 1999		37	0.28	16	0.00	26	0.07	31	0.25	46	0.06	31	0.12
Moravec 1969		57	0.23	75	0.00	62	0.05	63	0.05	84	0.02	68	0.03
Morozova 2008		42	0.27	53	0.00	51	0.06	53	0.06	84	0.03	65	0.04
Neighaus 1950		20	0.33	13	0.01	10	0.12	17	0.51	34	0.25	13	0.36
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.15	38	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	67	0.04	69	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.31	48	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.16	54	0.05	41	0.09
Osinska 1989		5	0.39	50	0.00	9	0.12	7	0.65	38	0.21	10	0.37
Pachmann 1927		64	0.21	74	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	80	0.03	71	0.03
Paderewski 1930		53	0.24	22	0.00	22	0.09	22	0.39	30	0.36	11	0.37
Perlemuter 1992		84	0.15	58	0.00	72	0.03	73	0.03	87	0.02	79	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.24	56	0.00	54	0.07	48	0.07	54	0.04	52	0.05
Poblocka 1999		47	0.26	73	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.16	61	0.05	40	0.09
Rabcewiczowa 1932		15	0.35	9	0.01	11	0.11	10	0.62	34	0.32	7	0.45
Rachmaninoff 1923		39	0.28	55	0.00	34	0.06	36	0.21	57	0.05	36	0.10
Rangell 2001		6	0.39	4	0.04	4	0.30	4	0.69	10	0.57	2	0.63
Richter 1976		35	0.29	44	0.00	47	0.09	46	0.09	66	0.05	48	0.07
Rosen 1989		11	0.37	6	0.02	13	0.14	18	0.51	39	0.16	18	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		25	0.31	28	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.23	36	0.30	19	0.26
Rosenthal 1931		48	0.26	79	0.00	56	0.06	59	0.06	46	0.07	51	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		61	0.23	70	0.00	58	0.06	57	0.06	50	0.05	61	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		19	0.33	7	0.01	24	0.07	26	0.34	41	0.16	20	0.23
Rosenthal 1931d		50	0.26	21	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.15	26	0.30	22	0.21
Rossi 2007		60	0.23	68	0.00	59	0.05	66	0.05	37	0.24	33	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		17	0.34	40	0.00	17	0.15	14	0.57	30	0.23	12	0.36
Rubinstein 1952		46	0.26	45	0.00	27	0.09	24	0.38	66	0.04	32	0.12
Rubinstein 1966		28	0.30	62	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.23	87	0.03	44	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		29	0.30	33	0.00	36	0.05	37	0.20	62	0.04	42	0.09
Shebanova 2002		43	0.26	14	0.01	57	0.06	60	0.06	83	0.04	58	0.05
Smith 1975		13	0.36	8	0.01	6	0.15	8	0.63	22	0.47	4	0.54
Sokolov 2002		36	0.29	23	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.15	42	0.15	28	0.15
Sztompka 1959		18	0.33	41	0.00	18	0.15	16	0.54	47	0.07	24	0.19
Tomsic 1995		79	0.16	51	0.00	73	0.03	72	0.03	82	0.04	70	0.03
Uninsky 1932		31	0.30	54	0.00	32	0.08	32	0.25	73	0.03	43	0.09
Uninsky 1971		10	0.38	47	0.00	7	0.17	5	0.69	53	0.06	23	0.20
Wasowski 1980		41	0.27	32	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.19	57	0.05	35	0.10
Zak 1937		68	0.19	82	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.03	81	0.02
Zak 1951		74	0.18	59	0.00	83	0.02	83	0.02	84	0.03	83	0.02
Average		1	0.46	1	0.33	1	0.32	1	0.79	84	0.03	29	0.15
Random 1		90	0.05	60	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	1	0.53	39	0.10
Random 2		89	0.08	57	0.00	78	0.02	80	0.02	21	0.33	45	0.08
Random 3		91	0.05	27	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	1	0.71	26	0.17

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).