Czerny 1990

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		67	0.32	70	0.00	53	0.07	52	0.07	54	0.05	62	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		42	0.38	16	0.00	33	0.14	32	0.44	22	0.50	32	0.47
Ashkenazy 1981		19	0.48	15	0.01	30	0.13	28	0.50	17	0.56	28	0.53
Bacha 2000		77	0.26	34	0.00	79	0.05	60	0.05	56	0.05	66	0.05
Badura 1965		69	0.31	35	0.00	59	0.04	71	0.04	30	0.22	52	0.09
Barbosa 1983		21	0.47	7	0.02	21	0.15	17	0.68	8	0.64	18	0.66
Biret 1990		49	0.36	31	0.00	66	0.04	74	0.04	60	0.05	82	0.04
Blet 2003		51	0.36	55	0.00	63	0.03	83	0.03	46	0.06	78	0.04
Block 1995		46	0.37	62	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	43	0.13	50	0.10
Blumental 1952		24	0.46	29	0.00	20	0.16	15	0.70	5	0.75	10	0.72
Boshniakovich 1969		47	0.36	71	0.00	49	0.08	48	0.08	68	0.05	65	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		75	0.29	53	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	54	0.06	67	0.05
Bunin 1987		40	0.39	68	0.00	41	0.06	40	0.18	19	0.48	40	0.29
Bunin 1987b		41	0.38	50	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.15	23	0.42	42	0.25
Chiu 1999		18	0.48	8	0.02	22	0.13	26	0.52	8	0.58	25	0.55
Cohen 1997		81	0.25	72	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.03
Cortot 1951		85	0.18	85	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	54	0.06	88	0.03
Csalog 1996		58	0.34	24	0.00	55	0.08	49	0.08	28	0.24	48	0.14
Czerny 1949		25	0.46	27	0.00	26	0.14	30	0.48	14	0.70	22	0.58
Czerny 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Duchoud 2007		60	0.34	47	0.00	67	0.05	63	0.05	40	0.13	55	0.08
Ezaki 2006		52	0.35	43	0.00	46	0.06	54	0.06	53	0.07	58	0.06
Falvay 1989		17	0.49	64	0.00	24	0.12	27	0.52	15	0.44	30	0.48
Farrell 1958		35	0.40	23	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.23	13	0.48	38	0.33
Ferenczy 1958		86	0.17	83	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	60	0.05	79	0.04
Fliere 1977		8	0.54	11	0.01	8	0.19	6	0.78	9	0.66	9	0.72
Fou 1978		13	0.52	21	0.00	13	0.13	10	0.75	3	0.74	7	0.74
Francois 1956		80	0.25	78	0.00	82	0.04	72	0.04	67	0.04	85	0.04
Friedman 1923		43	0.37	30	0.00	40	0.07	39	0.19	19	0.54	39	0.32
Friedman 1923b		45	0.37	48	0.00	37	0.09	37	0.27	21	0.53	35	0.38
Friedman 1930		34	0.41	46	0.00	35	0.09	36	0.28	24	0.50	36	0.37
Garcia 2007		71	0.31	80	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	45	0.09	64	0.06
Garcia 2007b		36	0.40	73	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.15	22	0.46	41	0.26
Gierzod 1998		66	0.33	65	0.00	48	0.06	56	0.06	59	0.06	63	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		59	0.34	61	0.00	54	0.06	55	0.06	41	0.13	53	0.09
Groot 1988		23	0.47	5	0.02	10	0.17	25	0.56	10	0.54	26	0.55
Harasiewicz 1955		15	0.51	26	0.00	12	0.19	11	0.75	5	0.63	14	0.69
Hatto 1993		9	0.53	12	0.01	7	0.29	8	0.77	5	0.74	6	0.75
Hatto 1997		27	0.46	58	0.00	27	0.16	22	0.62	15	0.53	23	0.57
Horowitz 1949		48	0.36	69	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	34	0.35	49	0.13
Indjic 1988		12	0.52	25	0.00	9	0.22	12	0.75	6	0.73	8	0.74
Kapell 1951		3	0.58	3	0.04	4	0.20	3	0.85	2	0.79	3	0.82
Kissin 1993		5	0.56	9	0.01	6	0.22	5	0.82	3	0.86	2	0.84
Kushner 1989		11	0.52	19	0.00	14	0.13	13	0.73	10	0.61	17	0.67
Luisada 1991		32	0.42	45	0.00	36	0.09	35	0.30	21	0.39	37	0.34
Lushtak 2004		54	0.35	44	0.00	60	0.04	78	0.04	65	0.04	80	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		29	0.45	56	0.00	25	0.13	24	0.56	22	0.49	29	0.52
Magaloff 1978		53	0.35	59	0.00	39	0.07	41	0.17	42	0.14	47	0.15
Magin 1975		31	0.42	51	0.00	31	0.15	29	0.50	13	0.58	27	0.54
Michalowski 1933		82	0.22	84	0.00	80	0.04	68	0.04	63	0.05	77	0.04
Milkina 1970		30	0.42	60	0.00	32	0.14	31	0.46	25	0.49	31	0.47
Mohovich 1999		73	0.30	79	0.00	72	0.05	65	0.05	53	0.05	71	0.05
Moravec 1969		14	0.51	13	0.01	16	0.13	20	0.66	3	0.68	16	0.67
Morozova 2008		20	0.47	28	0.00	18	0.12	16	0.68	6	0.62	20	0.65
Neighaus 1950		61	0.34	37	0.00	58	0.04	67	0.04	59	0.05	84	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.34	49	0.00	51	0.08	47	0.08	26	0.32	46	0.16
Ohlsson 1999		39	0.39	63	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	47	0.06	54	0.08
Osinska 1989		56	0.35	54	0.00	56	0.06	57	0.06	46	0.06	59	0.06
Pachmann 1927		78	0.26	66	0.00	76	0.04	69	0.04	48	0.08	60	0.06
Paderewski 1930		79	0.26	40	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	42	0.21	51	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		64	0.33	77	0.00	73	0.04	75	0.04	58	0.05	73	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		68	0.32	81	0.00	74	0.04	77	0.04	50	0.05	75	0.04
Poblocka 1999		6	0.55	4	0.02	5	0.23	7	0.78	2	0.76	5	0.77
Rabcewiczowa 1932		72	0.30	22	0.00	71	0.05	61	0.05	61	0.05	68	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		28	0.46	17	0.00	15	0.13	18	0.67	3	0.73	12	0.70
Rangell 2001		37	0.39	18	0.00	43	0.07	44	0.14	35	0.36	43	0.22
Richter 1976		4	0.57	6	0.02	3	0.24	4	0.83	3	0.82	4	0.82
Rosen 1989		57	0.35	86	0.00	61	0.04	81	0.04	71	0.04	81	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		44	0.37	41	0.00	52	0.07	51	0.07	15	0.61	44	0.21
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.21	87	0.00	83	0.05	64	0.05	48	0.07	61	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.17	88	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	73	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		76	0.27	74	0.00	77	0.05	62	0.05	57	0.05	72	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.19	75	0.00	84	0.05	58	0.05	64	0.04	83	0.04
Rossi 2007		88	0.14	89	0.00	88	0.03	87	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		38	0.39	38	0.00	28	0.11	34	0.41	20	0.45	33	0.43
Rubinstein 1952		26	0.46	33	0.00	29	0.11	23	0.59	14	0.56	24	0.57
Rubinstein 1966		16	0.50	52	0.00	19	0.13	14	0.72	14	0.59	19	0.65
Schilhawsky 1960		55	0.35	32	0.00	47	0.07	50	0.07	14	0.41	45	0.17
Shebanova 2002		7	0.55	10	0.01	11	0.16	9	0.75	9	0.68	11	0.71
Smith 1975		65	0.33	76	0.00	64	0.04	80	0.04	44	0.12	56	0.07
Sokolov 2002		74	0.29	82	0.00	65	0.04	73	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.04
Sztompka 1959		2	0.63	2	0.27	2	0.52	2	0.86	2	0.88	1	0.87
Tomsic 1995		50	0.36	39	0.00	62	0.04	79	0.04	56	0.06	70	0.05
Uninsky 1932		22	0.47	36	0.00	23	0.14	19	0.66	6	0.70	15	0.68
Uninsky 1971		33	0.41	20	0.00	34	0.16	33	0.41	28	0.38	34	0.39
Wasowski 1980		10	0.53	14	0.01	17	0.18	21	0.64	8	0.61	21	0.62
Zak 1937		62	0.34	42	0.00	68	0.04	82	0.04	78	0.04	76	0.04
Zak 1951		70	0.31	57	0.00	78	0.06	53	0.06	69	0.04	69	0.05
Average		1	0.65	1	0.49	1	0.49	1	0.90	15	0.54	13	0.70
Random 1		91	-0.06	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	55	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.06	67	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	34	0.23	57	0.07
Random 3		90	-0.03	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	46	0.05	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).