Indjic 1988

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		50	0.38	22	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	23	0.44	49	0.15
Anderszewski 2003		49	0.38	9	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.13	30	0.40	44	0.23
Ashkenazy 1981		8	0.51	3	0.00	14	0.12	12	0.62	7	0.69	12	0.65
Bacha 2000		36	0.41	45	0.00	46	0.09	46	0.09	11	0.58	43	0.23
Badura 1965		68	0.33	19	0.00	67	0.05	68	0.05	45	0.09	67	0.07
Barbosa 1983		13	0.50	31	0.00	13	0.11	10	0.66	6	0.68	11	0.67
Biret 1990		39	0.40	32	0.00	56	0.05	62	0.05	26	0.44	50	0.15
Blet 2003		29	0.42	55	0.00	20	0.12	25	0.41	10	0.53	24	0.47
Block 1995		67	0.34	71	0.00	53	0.06	53	0.06	57	0.05	76	0.05
Blumental 1952		10	0.51	46	0.00	11	0.11	9	0.68	3	0.77	7	0.72
Boshniakovich 1969		57	0.36	56	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.18	54	0.06	62	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		82	0.24	72	0.00	87	0.04	74	0.04	84	0.03	85	0.03
Bunin 1987		46	0.38	57	0.00	25	0.09	35	0.28	9	0.55	31	0.39
Bunin 1987b		51	0.37	73	0.00	27	0.08	37	0.23	12	0.53	34	0.35
Chiu 1999		22	0.45	58	0.00	32	0.09	27	0.39	14	0.51	25	0.45
Cohen 1997		78	0.26	74	0.00	79	0.06	60	0.06	48	0.07	71	0.06
Cortot 1951		87	0.22	20	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	55	0.06	82	0.04
Csalog 1996		62	0.35	59	0.00	66	0.07	51	0.07	53	0.06	69	0.06
Czerny 1949		72	0.30	60	0.00	72	0.04	79	0.04	42	0.21	64	0.09
Czerny 1990		6	0.52	14	0.00	7	0.18	6	0.73	12	0.75	5	0.74
Duchoud 2007		58	0.36	61	0.00	60	0.05	71	0.05	22	0.35	56	0.13
Ezaki 2006		64	0.34	10	0.00	70	0.06	58	0.06	64	0.05	72	0.05
Falvay 1989		19	0.48	33	0.00	30	0.09	23	0.46	16	0.44	26	0.45
Farrell 1958		79	0.26	75	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	63	0.05	79	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		81	0.25	47	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	46	0.08	75	0.05
Fliere 1977		20	0.47	34	0.00	24	0.12	21	0.52	37	0.25	32	0.36
Fou 1978		40	0.40	35	0.00	54	0.07	50	0.07	52	0.05	68	0.06
Francois 1956		77	0.26	76	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	58	0.04	84	0.04
Friedman 1923		63	0.35	36	0.00	63	0.06	57	0.06	30	0.36	51	0.15
Friedman 1923b		65	0.34	77	0.00	64	0.07	52	0.07	32	0.37	47	0.16
Friedman 1930		34	0.42	37	0.00	31	0.09	30	0.31	18	0.55	29	0.41
Garcia 2007		69	0.33	8	0.00	47	0.05	69	0.05	19	0.41	53	0.14
Garcia 2007b		23	0.44	6	0.00	8	0.18	13	0.62	3	0.75	10	0.68
Gierzod 1998		38	0.40	23	0.00	35	0.06	31	0.30	27	0.34	36	0.32
Gornostaeva 1994		75	0.28	78	0.00	80	0.04	81	0.04	83	0.03	87	0.03
Groot 1988		7	0.52	38	0.00	6	0.16	4	0.75	4	0.73	6	0.74
Harasiewicz 1955		11	0.50	39	0.00	18	0.11	15	0.58	23	0.43	20	0.50
Hatto 1993		1	0.97	1	0.99	1	0.98	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Hatto 1997		2	0.91	2	0.01	2	0.96	2	0.99	1	0.99	2	0.99
Horowitz 1949		60	0.35	48	0.00	62	0.05	63	0.05	20	0.52	46	0.16
Indjic 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kapell 1951		12	0.50	40	0.00	19	0.17	11	0.63	10	0.52	15	0.57
Kissin 1993		16	0.48	49	0.00	16	0.12	14	0.61	15	0.65	13	0.63
Kushner 1989		18	0.48	50	0.00	21	0.12	18	0.54	24	0.41	21	0.47
Luisada 1991		5	0.53	12	0.00	5	0.23	8	0.69	4	0.71	9	0.70
Lushtak 2004		66	0.34	62	0.00	65	0.08	48	0.08	61	0.05	70	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.45	79	0.00	17	0.12	20	0.54	12	0.54	17	0.54
Magaloff 1978		48	0.38	41	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.16	40	0.14	48	0.15
Magin 1975		9	0.51	24	0.00	9	0.21	7	0.72	2	0.76	4	0.74
Michalowski 1933		74	0.29	42	0.00	69	0.05	70	0.05	20	0.42	52	0.14
Milkina 1970		15	0.49	80	0.00	15	0.11	16	0.58	14	0.66	14	0.62
Mohovich 1999		47	0.38	25	0.00	22	0.13	29	0.35	27	0.43	30	0.39
Moravec 1969		31	0.42	51	0.00	41	0.08	42	0.17	21	0.37	41	0.25
Morozova 2008		44	0.38	15	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.21	35	0.28	42	0.24
Neighaus 1950		55	0.37	63	0.00	50	0.06	56	0.06	36	0.23	57	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		42	0.39	13	0.00	34	0.11	33	0.29	6	0.57	28	0.41
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.43	64	0.00	33	0.11	32	0.29	28	0.30	40	0.29
Osinska 1989		37	0.41	65	0.00	49	0.05	67	0.05	42	0.17	63	0.09
Pachmann 1927		84	0.24	81	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	63	0.05	80	0.04
Paderewski 1930		61	0.35	21	0.00	42	0.05	44	0.14	4	0.68	38	0.31
Perlemuter 1992		73	0.30	82	0.00	68	0.05	65	0.05	42	0.13	65	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.36	26	0.00	48	0.05	64	0.05	14	0.54	45	0.16
Poblocka 1999		52	0.37	52	0.00	55	0.07	49	0.07	43	0.16	58	0.11
Rabcewiczowa 1932		76	0.26	83	0.00	76	0.04	82	0.04	67	0.04	78	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		53	0.37	66	0.00	59	0.06	59	0.06	40	0.20	59	0.11
Rangell 2001		80	0.26	27	0.00	77	0.04	75	0.04	56	0.05	81	0.04
Richter 1976		30	0.42	84	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.22	30	0.38	39	0.29
Rosen 1989		45	0.38	5	0.00	51	0.06	55	0.06	59	0.04	77	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		70	0.32	85	0.00	74	0.04	77	0.04	38	0.28	61	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.24	86	0.00	81	0.04	78	0.04	51	0.06	74	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.23	87	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.31	53	0.00	73	0.04	80	0.04	53	0.05	83	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.22	67	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	67	0.04	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		88	0.06	68	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	84	0.02	90	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		33	0.42	69	0.00	36	0.07	34	0.28	17	0.46	33	0.36
Rubinstein 1952		26	0.44	28	0.00	28	0.08	22	0.50	17	0.54	18	0.52
Rubinstein 1966		17	0.48	16	0.00	10	0.14	19	0.54	19	0.49	19	0.51
Schilhawsky 1960		54	0.37	88	0.00	61	0.05	66	0.05	23	0.36	55	0.13
Shebanova 2002		4	0.54	17	0.00	4	0.40	5	0.74	8	0.68	8	0.71
Smith 1975		59	0.35	89	0.00	71	0.04	73	0.04	48	0.07	73	0.05
Sokolov 2002		27	0.43	90	0.00	40	0.08	40	0.19	15	0.50	37	0.31
Sztompka 1959		41	0.39	70	0.00	23	0.10	28	0.38	20	0.51	27	0.44
Tomsic 1995		25	0.44	43	0.00	29	0.07	26	0.40	8	0.55	22	0.47
Uninsky 1932		43	0.39	44	0.00	37	0.07	36	0.24	21	0.43	35	0.32
Uninsky 1971		24	0.44	29	0.00	26	0.09	24	0.44	16	0.51	23	0.47
Wasowski 1980		14	0.49	11	0.00	12	0.11	17	0.56	13	0.55	16	0.55
Zak 1937		32	0.42	7	0.00	57	0.06	54	0.06	33	0.21	60	0.11
Zak 1951		35	0.42	18	0.00	58	0.08	47	0.08	31	0.21	54	0.13
Average		3	0.67	4	0.00	3	0.70	3	0.91	7	0.62	3	0.75
Random 1		90	-0.02	54	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	52	0.04	86	0.03
Random 2		89	0.06	30	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	24	0.30	66	0.08
Random 3		91	-0.07	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	58	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).