Pachmann 1927

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		71	0.22	48	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	63	0.04	79	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		83	0.17	72	0.00	65	0.05	65	0.05	83	0.03	68	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		18	0.38	30	0.00	24	0.11	21	0.45	55	0.07	26	0.18
Bacha 2000		65	0.25	43	0.00	64	0.05	61	0.05	65	0.04	57	0.04
Badura 1965		57	0.26	60	0.00	38	0.05	40	0.15	52	0.04	40	0.08
Barbosa 1983		63	0.25	74	0.00	59	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.04	67	0.04
Biret 1990		76	0.21	65	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03	82	0.03
Blet 2003		72	0.22	36	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Block 1995		26	0.36	39	0.00	22	0.09	23	0.44	50	0.07	25	0.18
Blumental 1952		78	0.19	53	0.00	80	0.04	77	0.04	72	0.05	71	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		3	0.48	1	0.34	1	0.34	3	0.79	13	0.59	2	0.68
Brailowsky 1960		74	0.21	79	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	74	0.05	59	0.04
Bunin 1987		41	0.31	40	0.00	35	0.07	34	0.24	51	0.06	36	0.12
Bunin 1987b		44	0.31	80	0.00	34	0.07	35	0.24	47	0.09	29	0.15
Chiu 1999		27	0.35	24	0.00	36	0.08	33	0.28	50	0.06	30	0.13
Cohen 1997		67	0.24	56	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03	81	0.03
Cortot 1951		75	0.21	75	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.04	83	0.03
Csalog 1996		19	0.38	49	0.00	23	0.10	15	0.50	38	0.15	16	0.27
Czerny 1949		81	0.17	28	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	71	0.04	70	0.04
Czerny 1990		59	0.26	27	0.00	52	0.08	48	0.08	69	0.04	49	0.06
Duchoud 2007		37	0.32	42	0.00	41	0.06	37	0.18	48	0.07	37	0.11
Ezaki 2006		54	0.28	37	0.00	54	0.06	57	0.06	67	0.05	51	0.05
Falvay 1989		58	0.26	86	0.00	55	0.07	53	0.07	87	0.02	60	0.04
Farrell 1958		60	0.26	33	0.00	51	0.07	51	0.07	65	0.05	47	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		86	0.12	69	0.00	86	0.03	88	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03
Fliere 1977		4	0.45	19	0.01	5	0.18	4	0.69	55	0.06	21	0.20
Fou 1978		32	0.33	12	0.01	26	0.12	29	0.36	67	0.04	35	0.12
Francois 1956		77	0.20	41	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923		13	0.40	25	0.00	13	0.14	11	0.56	23	0.49	7	0.52
Friedman 1923b		8	0.42	4	0.07	7	0.17	8	0.61	22	0.52	5	0.56
Friedman 1930		28	0.35	23	0.00	30	0.07	32	0.31	44	0.10	24	0.18
Garcia 2007		36	0.33	35	0.00	28	0.06	27	0.37	35	0.18	18	0.26
Garcia 2007b		55	0.27	46	0.00	47	0.07	49	0.07	62	0.05	50	0.06
Gierzod 1998		35	0.33	59	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.14	72	0.04	45	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		39	0.31	51	0.00	56	0.07	50	0.07	73	0.03	55	0.05
Groot 1988		50	0.28	82	0.00	57	0.08	46	0.08	85	0.03	56	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.38	61	0.00	31	0.08	31	0.33	67	0.05	32	0.13
Hatto 1993		56	0.27	84	0.00	60	0.06	55	0.06	83	0.03	72	0.04
Hatto 1997		84	0.16	87	0.00	83	0.05	66	0.05	85	0.03	69	0.04
Horowitz 1949		68	0.23	89	0.00	62	0.05	67	0.05	83	0.03	64	0.04
Indjic 1988		66	0.24	90	0.00	63	0.05	63	0.05	84	0.03	66	0.04
Kapell 1951		25	0.36	9	0.01	21	0.09	19	0.47	69	0.05	28	0.15
Kissin 1993		24	0.36	10	0.01	18	0.08	16	0.49	43	0.18	13	0.30
Kushner 1989		22	0.37	22	0.00	20	0.08	17	0.48	66	0.05	27	0.15
Luisada 1991		48	0.29	76	0.00	68	0.05	64	0.05	72	0.05	52	0.05
Lushtak 2004		51	0.28	50	0.00	50	0.08	47	0.08	76	0.04	48	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.39	13	0.01	8	0.15	7	0.61	42	0.16	12	0.31
Magaloff 1978		7	0.43	7	0.02	4	0.18	5	0.64	17	0.44	6	0.53
Magin 1975		11	0.40	26	0.00	11	0.10	9	0.61	36	0.30	8	0.43
Michalowski 1933		30	0.34	17	0.01	27	0.09	26	0.37	23	0.40	9	0.38
Milkina 1970		79	0.19	31	0.00	78	0.04	73	0.04	83	0.03	75	0.03
Mohovich 1999		33	0.33	66	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.15	68	0.04	41	0.08
Moravec 1969		64	0.25	73	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	71	0.04	58	0.04
Morozova 2008		43	0.31	38	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.12	63	0.04	44	0.07
Neighaus 1950		23	0.36	47	0.00	25	0.14	24	0.43	41	0.19	15	0.29
Niedzielski 1931		49	0.28	71	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	54	0.05	43	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.37	15	0.01	16	0.10	22	0.45	67	0.04	31	0.13
Osinska 1989		10	0.41	16	0.01	17	0.08	25	0.39	71	0.04	34	0.12
Pachmann 1927		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Paderewski 1930		12	0.40	14	0.01	12	0.10	14	0.53	10	0.60	4	0.56
Perlemuter 1992		16	0.38	32	0.00	29	0.07	28	0.36	40	0.18	19	0.25
Pierdomenico 2008		5	0.45	6	0.02	9	0.15	10	0.60	8	0.58	3	0.59
Poblocka 1999		53	0.28	64	0.00	61	0.07	52	0.07	78	0.03	53	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		52	0.28	34	0.00	58	0.05	60	0.05	71	0.04	63	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		80	0.18	81	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	82	0.03	74	0.03
Rangell 2001		38	0.32	57	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.17	58	0.05	39	0.09
Richter 1976		2	0.50	2	0.22	3	0.43	1	0.81	15	0.64	1	0.72
Rosen 1989		6	0.45	5	0.02	10	0.20	6	0.62	30	0.22	10	0.37
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.17	77	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.13	67	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	85	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.10	85	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	85	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.22	68	0.00	70	0.04	76	0.04	88	0.02	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.09	91	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	89	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		42	0.31	18	0.01	33	0.07	39	0.17	19	0.41	17	0.26
Rubinstein 1939		62	0.25	11	0.01	53	0.06	54	0.06	75	0.03	62	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		47	0.29	58	0.00	49	0.06	56	0.06	85	0.03	73	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		61	0.26	78	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	72	0.03	77	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		40	0.31	70	0.00	46	0.06	58	0.06	59	0.05	54	0.05
Shebanova 2002		9	0.41	8	0.01	6	0.14	12	0.55	50	0.07	22	0.20
Smith 1975		70	0.23	62	0.00	81	0.05	62	0.05	74	0.04	61	0.04
Sokolov 2002		46	0.30	45	0.00	37	0.06	43	0.14	62	0.04	42	0.07
Sztompka 1959		34	0.33	83	0.00	48	0.05	59	0.05	69	0.04	65	0.04
Tomsic 1995		45	0.30	29	0.00	40	0.06	36	0.19	59	0.05	38	0.10
Uninsky 1932		29	0.35	44	0.00	15	0.08	20	0.47	35	0.19	14	0.30
Uninsky 1971		69	0.23	52	0.00	69	0.04	70	0.04	80	0.03	76	0.03
Wasowski 1980		31	0.34	63	0.00	32	0.08	30	0.35	80	0.04	33	0.12
Zak 1937		15	0.39	21	0.00	14	0.10	13	0.53	37	0.18	11	0.31
Zak 1951		20	0.38	20	0.00	19	0.09	18	0.47	43	0.12	20	0.24
Average		1	0.52	3	0.12	2	0.32	2	0.81	71	0.04	23	0.18
Random 1		89	-0.03	54	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	48	0.05	88	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.07	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.04	55	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	27	0.24	46	0.07

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).