Paderewski 1930

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		48	0.24	56	0.00	59	0.04	72	0.04	75	0.03	77	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		72	0.18	65	0.00	56	0.05	58	0.05	82	0.03	62	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.38	3	0.09	4	0.15	8	0.63	37	0.23	11	0.38
Bacha 2000		41	0.26	4	0.04	16	0.09	36	0.32	29	0.27	18	0.29
Badura 1965		65	0.19	35	0.00	72	0.05	56	0.05	64	0.04	65	0.04
Barbosa 1983		57	0.22	77	0.00	49	0.06	52	0.06	73	0.04	50	0.05
Biret 1990		76	0.15	43	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Blet 2003		15	0.35	15	0.01	20	0.10	17	0.54	35	0.27	10	0.38
Block 1995		54	0.23	46	0.00	41	0.07	43	0.21	69	0.04	43	0.09
Blumental 1952		69	0.19	25	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	81	0.03	67	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		2	0.41	2	0.09	2	0.24	2	0.76	32	0.28	6	0.46
Brailowsky 1960		88	0.00	87	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Bunin 1987		50	0.24	29	0.00	52	0.07	48	0.07	79	0.03	53	0.05
Bunin 1987b		55	0.23	78	0.00	54	0.04	62	0.04	87	0.03	73	0.03
Chiu 1999		53	0.23	88	0.00	64	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.03
Cohen 1997		73	0.17	57	0.00	79	0.04	63	0.04	84	0.03	80	0.03
Cortot 1951		47	0.24	30	0.00	29	0.09	30	0.36	22	0.39	12	0.37
Csalog 1996		67	0.19	44	0.00	70	0.05	61	0.05	78	0.03	61	0.04
Czerny 1949		81	0.13	89	0.00	81	0.04	68	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.04
Czerny 1990		42	0.26	31	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.21	76	0.04	44	0.09
Duchoud 2007		75	0.16	75	0.00	80	0.04	64	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04
Ezaki 2006		86	0.09	79	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	85	0.02
Falvay 1989		78	0.15	69	0.00	74	0.03	86	0.03	80	0.03	71	0.03
Farrell 1958		83	0.12	62	0.00	75	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.02	87	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		87	0.05	45	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	81	0.03	75	0.03
Fliere 1977		14	0.36	50	0.00	18	0.12	14	0.57	72	0.04	29	0.15
Fou 1978		51	0.24	24	0.00	40	0.09	39	0.28	68	0.04	39	0.11
Francois 1956		39	0.26	16	0.01	33	0.08	37	0.32	29	0.27	19	0.29
Friedman 1923		26	0.31	37	0.00	32	0.13	26	0.43	37	0.24	16	0.32
Friedman 1923b		23	0.32	41	0.00	31	0.09	25	0.44	40	0.23	15	0.32
Friedman 1930		20	0.33	12	0.01	21	0.09	19	0.53	32	0.24	14	0.36
Garcia 2007		19	0.33	21	0.00	19	0.11	16	0.55	28	0.31	9	0.41
Garcia 2007b		27	0.31	36	0.00	24	0.09	21	0.49	44	0.12	22	0.24
Gierzod 1998		40	0.26	81	0.00	43	0.09	41	0.21	64	0.05	42	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		63	0.20	33	0.00	63	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Groot 1988		21	0.33	40	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.47	69	0.04	33	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		30	0.30	48	0.00	38	0.08	40	0.26	56	0.05	40	0.11
Hatto 1993		17	0.34	8	0.02	6	0.16	5	0.66	55	0.07	23	0.21
Hatto 1997		46	0.25	60	0.00	37	0.10	33	0.35	75	0.04	38	0.12
Horowitz 1949		35	0.27	26	0.00	47	0.06	53	0.06	85	0.03	60	0.04
Indjic 1988		16	0.35	10	0.02	5	0.15	4	0.68	44	0.14	17	0.31
Kapell 1951		37	0.27	67	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	60	0.05	45	0.08
Kissin 1993		4	0.40	7	0.03	3	0.25	3	0.75	22	0.56	1	0.65
Kushner 1989		18	0.34	58	0.00	22	0.10	18	0.53	60	0.05	27	0.16
Luisada 1991		31	0.30	18	0.01	28	0.09	22	0.48	68	0.05	28	0.15
Lushtak 2004		66	0.19	71	0.00	55	0.04	66	0.04	77	0.03	79	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.39	23	0.00	11	0.12	6	0.65	58	0.05	24	0.18
Magaloff 1978		29	0.30	28	0.00	15	0.12	15	0.56	45	0.12	21	0.26
Magin 1975		7	0.39	11	0.02	14	0.12	20	0.52	72	0.04	32	0.14
Michalowski 1933		13	0.37	9	0.02	23	0.10	24	0.45	14	0.44	7	0.44
Milkina 1970		74	0.17	83	0.00	73	0.05	57	0.05	85	0.03	57	0.04
Mohovich 1999		70	0.19	76	0.00	57	0.07	47	0.07	77	0.04	51	0.05
Moravec 1969		64	0.20	73	0.00	68	0.05	55	0.05	83	0.03	54	0.04
Morozova 2008		49	0.24	86	0.00	65	0.03	75	0.03	73	0.04	74	0.03
Neighaus 1950		12	0.37	13	0.01	7	0.15	7	0.64	22	0.41	5	0.51
Niedzielski 1931		22	0.32	22	0.00	27	0.10	29	0.41	53	0.05	31	0.14
Ohlsson 1999		25	0.32	47	0.00	30	0.09	32	0.35	72	0.03	41	0.10
Osinska 1989		56	0.22	27	0.00	66	0.03	74	0.03	83	0.03	68	0.03
Pachmann 1927		3	0.40	6	0.04	10	0.10	10	0.60	14	0.53	3	0.56
Paderewski 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Perlemuter 1992		5	0.39	20	0.01	12	0.11	12	0.59	21	0.44	4	0.51
Pierdomenico 2008		9	0.38	5	0.04	9	0.11	13	0.59	9	0.55	2	0.57
Poblocka 1999		84	0.11	42	0.00	58	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		71	0.18	90	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03	72	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		80	0.13	54	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.02	86	0.02
Rangell 2001		34	0.28	64	0.00	34	0.07	35	0.34	55	0.05	35	0.13
Richter 1976		6	0.39	34	0.00	13	0.13	11	0.60	39	0.22	13	0.36
Rosen 1989		45	0.25	51	0.00	61	0.04	70	0.04	67	0.04	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.15	91	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.10	84	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.14	66	0.00	82	0.04	69	0.04	80	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		62	0.20	85	0.00	60	0.04	71	0.04	71	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.12	72	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03
Rossi 2007		43	0.26	19	0.01	44	0.08	44	0.17	17	0.44	20	0.27
Rubinstein 1939		61	0.20	82	0.00	71	0.05	59	0.05	82	0.03	55	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		38	0.27	63	0.00	46	0.06	54	0.06	88	0.02	84	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		36	0.27	59	0.00	39	0.07	34	0.35	68	0.04	37	0.12
Schilhawsky 1960		44	0.26	53	0.00	48	0.09	46	0.09	72	0.04	47	0.06
Shebanova 2002		24	0.32	55	0.00	26	0.09	28	0.43	51	0.07	25	0.17
Smith 1975		68	0.19	32	0.00	50	0.06	51	0.06	66	0.04	48	0.05
Sokolov 2002		33	0.28	38	0.00	35	0.08	38	0.29	60	0.05	36	0.12
Sztompka 1959		11	0.38	17	0.01	8	0.13	9	0.61	37	0.30	8	0.43
Tomsic 1995		59	0.22	68	0.00	69	0.05	60	0.05	84	0.03	59	0.04
Uninsky 1932		32	0.29	49	0.00	36	0.11	31	0.36	51	0.05	34	0.13
Uninsky 1971		52	0.24	52	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	76	0.04	49	0.05
Wasowski 1980		28	0.31	14	0.01	17	0.09	27	0.43	51	0.06	26	0.16
Zak 1937		60	0.21	39	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	58	0.05	56	0.04
Zak 1951		58	0.22	70	0.00	62	0.04	67	0.04	81	0.04	58	0.04
Average		1	0.45	1	0.43	1	0.43	1	0.80	85	0.03	30	0.15
Random 1		89	0.00	61	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	24	0.35	46	0.08
Random 2		91	-0.02	74	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	45	0.11	76	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.01	80	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	23	0.30	52	0.05

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).