Ferenczy 1958

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