Horowitz 1949

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		45	0.30	59	0.00	30	0.11	30	0.37	60	0.04	36	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		73	0.21	88	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03	74	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		4	0.44	4	0.08	3	0.18	2	0.71	21	0.51	4	0.60
Bacha 2000		76	0.19	50	0.00	64	0.04	64	0.04	69	0.04	53	0.04
Badura 1965		78	0.19	30	0.00	75	0.03	74	0.03	69	0.03	77	0.03
Barbosa 1983		26	0.35	28	0.00	23	0.10	23	0.50	54	0.07	18	0.19
Biret 1990		44	0.30	41	0.00	38	0.09	37	0.31	70	0.04	41	0.11
Blet 2003		9	0.41	25	0.00	13	0.09	14	0.56	23	0.44	11	0.50
Block 1995		40	0.31	65	0.00	37	0.09	35	0.34	62	0.04	37	0.12
Blumental 1952		33	0.34	12	0.01	10	0.15	19	0.52	38	0.20	13	0.32
Boshniakovich 1969		24	0.36	14	0.00	24	0.08	21	0.51	69	0.04	29	0.14
Brailowsky 1960		22	0.36	20	0.00	9	0.12	10	0.60	21	0.56	5	0.58
Bunin 1987		3	0.45	13	0.00	8	0.15	6	0.67	16	0.51	7	0.58
Bunin 1987b		8	0.42	18	0.00	16	0.11	12	0.58	22	0.42	12	0.49
Chiu 1999		20	0.37	24	0.00	19	0.10	17	0.53	42	0.13	16	0.26
Cohen 1997		75	0.19	63	0.00	58	0.04	66	0.04	81	0.03	79	0.03
Cortot 1951		86	0.10	79	0.00	87	0.03	77	0.03	90	0.01	88	0.02
Csalog 1996		52	0.28	33	0.00	59	0.04	60	0.04	62	0.05	62	0.04
Czerny 1949		87	0.10	78	0.00	88	0.03	88	0.03	91	0.01	86	0.02
Czerny 1990		23	0.36	42	0.00	33	0.08	34	0.35	59	0.05	33	0.13
Duchoud 2007		67	0.23	46	0.00	67	0.04	68	0.04	63	0.05	63	0.04
Ezaki 2006		84	0.14	62	0.00	85	0.04	71	0.04	86	0.02	66	0.03
Falvay 1989		55	0.28	87	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	88	0.02	68	0.03
Farrell 1958		81	0.18	73	0.00	82	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.02	85	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		83	0.16	10	0.01	42	0.06	43	0.12	48	0.08	42	0.10
Fliere 1977		14	0.39	67	0.00	27	0.10	27	0.44	66	0.04	30	0.13
Fou 1978		61	0.26	80	0.00	47	0.06	46	0.06	81	0.03	55	0.04
Francois 1956		79	0.19	82	0.00	83	0.04	69	0.04	80	0.03	83	0.03
Friedman 1923		17	0.38	60	0.00	15	0.09	8	0.63	20	0.52	9	0.57
Friedman 1923b		16	0.38	22	0.00	11	0.12	9	0.63	19	0.54	8	0.58
Friedman 1930		10	0.40	6	0.02	6	0.32	5	0.69	12	0.58	2	0.63
Garcia 2007		50	0.29	58	0.00	56	0.05	57	0.05	51	0.05	51	0.05
Garcia 2007b		32	0.34	27	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.20	43	0.12	25	0.15
Gierzod 1998		80	0.18	91	0.00	69	0.03	86	0.03	85	0.03	76	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		63	0.24	83	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03
Groot 1988		6	0.44	19	0.00	7	0.12	7	0.67	41	0.15	14	0.32
Harasiewicz 1955		34	0.33	45	0.00	39	0.08	39	0.22	76	0.04	43	0.09
Hatto 1993		29	0.35	36	0.00	18	0.10	16	0.55	59	0.06	20	0.18
Hatto 1997		41	0.31	74	0.00	29	0.11	28	0.42	77	0.04	31	0.13
Horowitz 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Indjic 1988		28	0.35	81	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.52	63	0.05	23	0.16
Kapell 1951		18	0.37	5	0.04	12	0.09	38	0.29	76	0.04	38	0.11
Kissin 1993		59	0.27	90	0.00	61	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.05	60	0.04
Kushner 1989		42	0.31	37	0.00	43	0.06	44	0.11	81	0.04	45	0.07
Luisada 1991		2	0.45	2	0.21	2	0.31	4	0.70	15	0.52	3	0.60
Lushtak 2004		65	0.24	44	0.00	63	0.03	84	0.03	87	0.03	78	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		46	0.30	34	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	86	0.03	57	0.04
Magaloff 1978		21	0.37	77	0.00	25	0.08	22	0.50	50	0.05	21	0.16
Magin 1975		38	0.32	75	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	75	0.04	47	0.05
Michalowski 1933		53	0.28	51	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	65	0.05	50	0.05
Milkina 1970		58	0.27	48	0.00	46	0.06	50	0.06	80	0.03	56	0.04
Mohovich 1999		36	0.33	31	0.00	36	0.09	36	0.33	56	0.05	32	0.13
Moravec 1969		25	0.36	47	0.00	34	0.08	31	0.37	66	0.04	34	0.12
Morozova 2008		51	0.29	7	0.02	40	0.09	41	0.20	48	0.06	39	0.11
Neighaus 1950		49	0.29	64	0.00	54	0.05	55	0.05	80	0.03	65	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		13	0.39	3	0.14	4	0.19	11	0.59	7	0.57	6	0.58
Ohlsson 1999		47	0.30	55	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	51	0.05	49	0.05
Osinska 1989		70	0.23	56	0.00	72	0.04	61	0.04	80	0.03	67	0.03
Pachmann 1927		66	0.23	68	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	67	0.05	59	0.04
Paderewski 1930		57	0.27	39	0.00	62	0.03	85	0.03	53	0.06	58	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		31	0.34	29	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.13	68	0.05	44	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		48	0.29	69	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.04	54	0.04
Poblocka 1999		30	0.35	76	0.00	35	0.07	32	0.36	73	0.04	35	0.12
Rabcewiczowa 1932		72	0.22	72	0.00	78	0.04	59	0.04	86	0.03	71	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		5	0.44	11	0.01	5	0.30	3	0.70	8	0.60	1	0.65
Rangell 2001		62	0.25	49	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.02	87	0.02
Richter 1976		19	0.37	17	0.00	32	0.08	29	0.37	63	0.05	26	0.14
Rosen 1989		39	0.32	23	0.00	26	0.09	26	0.48	65	0.04	28	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		27	0.35	26	0.00	20	0.08	18	0.53	21	0.57	10	0.55
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.14	52	0.00	84	0.05	54	0.05	65	0.04	61	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.17	89	0.00	80	0.04	58	0.04	72	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		68	0.23	57	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	62	0.04	52	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		74	0.19	84	0.00	79	0.04	62	0.04	59	0.05	64	0.04
Rossi 2007		89	0.05	66	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.01	89	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		69	0.23	35	0.00	73	0.04	65	0.04	87	0.02	70	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		54	0.28	21	0.00	66	0.03	72	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		56	0.27	70	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	77	0.03	75	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		35	0.33	8	0.01	31	0.08	33	0.36	34	0.17	17	0.25
Shebanova 2002		11	0.39	53	0.00	14	0.08	15	0.55	57	0.06	19	0.18
Smith 1975		77	0.19	85	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.03
Sokolov 2002		71	0.23	71	0.00	68	0.03	73	0.03	83	0.02	84	0.02
Sztompka 1959		12	0.39	16	0.00	21	0.09	24	0.50	60	0.05	22	0.16
Tomsic 1995		60	0.26	40	0.00	70	0.04	63	0.04	83	0.03	72	0.03
Uninsky 1932		15	0.38	15	0.00	28	0.12	25	0.49	66	0.04	27	0.14
Uninsky 1971		64	0.24	54	0.00	60	0.03	76	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.03
Wasowski 1980		7	0.42	9	0.01	17	0.13	13	0.57	39	0.16	15	0.30
Zak 1937		37	0.33	32	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	72	0.04	46	0.07
Zak 1951		43	0.31	43	0.00	53	0.06	51	0.06	71	0.04	48	0.05
Average		1	0.52	1	0.37	1	0.36	1	0.83	81	0.03	24	0.16
Random 1		90	-0.09	61	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01	90	0.01
Random 2		88	0.07	38	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	11	0.42	40	0.11
Random 3		91	-0.10	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.02	91	0.01

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).