Rachmaninoff 1923

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		26	0.38	12	0.01	22	0.09	21	0.42	19	0.48	21	0.45
Anderszewski 2003		81	0.23	73	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.04	82	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		18	0.41	5	0.03	18	0.09	16	0.52	25	0.45	19	0.48
Bacha 2000		86	0.17	50	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	78	0.03	88	0.02
Badura 1965		63	0.29	67	0.00	72	0.04	63	0.04	65	0.04	73	0.04
Barbosa 1983		21	0.40	11	0.01	25	0.09	30	0.34	52	0.07	37	0.15
Biret 1990		12	0.43	23	0.00	8	0.14	13	0.54	16	0.58	12	0.56
Blet 2003		39	0.35	39	0.00	49	0.07	49	0.07	44	0.13	45	0.10
Block 1995		31	0.37	59	0.00	35	0.06	37	0.24	49	0.07	41	0.13
Blumental 1952		43	0.35	8	0.01	24	0.10	23	0.39	33	0.28	28	0.33
Boshniakovich 1969		82	0.22	74	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	72	0.04	86	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		13	0.43	9	0.01	13	0.11	15	0.54	12	0.66	4	0.60
Bunin 1987		8	0.44	27	0.00	9	0.09	10	0.57	5	0.61	7	0.59
Bunin 1987b		14	0.43	35	0.00	10	0.11	17	0.52	7	0.58	13	0.55
Chiu 1999		34	0.36	42	0.00	30	0.07	28	0.35	22	0.32	27	0.33
Cohen 1997		76	0.24	83	0.00	74	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.04	75	0.04
Cortot 1951		69	0.28	63	0.00	73	0.05	57	0.05	36	0.21	47	0.10
Csalog 1996		44	0.34	37	0.00	38	0.07	39	0.21	24	0.30	31	0.25
Czerny 1949		64	0.29	75	0.00	65	0.04	74	0.04	50	0.06	66	0.05
Czerny 1990		6	0.46	4	0.04	4	0.23	3	0.73	18	0.67	2	0.70
Duchoud 2007		62	0.29	69	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	35	0.22	46	0.10
Ezaki 2006		46	0.34	22	0.00	36	0.05	45	0.11	50	0.08	49	0.09
Falvay 1989		35	0.36	65	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	57	0.05	57	0.06
Farrell 1958		23	0.40	14	0.00	21	0.13	18	0.49	10	0.55	17	0.52
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.24	48	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	50	0.07	65	0.05
Fliere 1977		3	0.50	6	0.01	3	0.28	5	0.68	22	0.48	10	0.57
Fou 1978		25	0.38	56	0.00	29	0.10	24	0.38	41	0.21	30	0.28
Francois 1956		68	0.28	77	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	40	0.16	54	0.08
Friedman 1923		16	0.41	10	0.01	19	0.09	14	0.54	10	0.66	6	0.60
Friedman 1923b		19	0.40	25	0.00	20	0.10	12	0.55	11	0.64	8	0.59
Friedman 1930		28	0.37	26	0.00	27	0.09	20	0.43	20	0.51	20	0.47
Garcia 2007		75	0.24	89	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03	84	0.03
Garcia 2007b		57	0.30	78	0.00	64	0.04	73	0.04	64	0.05	78	0.04
Gierzod 1998		84	0.18	52	0.00	76	0.04	70	0.04	79	0.03	83	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		58	0.30	41	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	69	0.04	76	0.04
Groot 1988		4	0.48	13	0.01	6	0.20	4	0.70	14	0.49	9	0.59
Harasiewicz 1955		29	0.37	68	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.23	79	0.04	48	0.10
Hatto 1993		33	0.37	64	0.00	34	0.07	34	0.26	49	0.08	39	0.14
Hatto 1997		30	0.37	20	0.00	44	0.09	41	0.19	44	0.09	40	0.13
Horowitz 1949		9	0.44	19	0.00	11	0.12	8	0.60	3	0.70	3	0.65
Indjic 1988		32	0.37	58	0.00	43	0.07	40	0.20	59	0.06	43	0.11
Kapell 1951		27	0.38	60	0.00	40	0.08	36	0.24	53	0.06	42	0.12
Kissin 1993		74	0.24	53	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	60	0.06	72	0.04
Kushner 1989		56	0.30	57	0.00	62	0.04	69	0.04	76	0.04	69	0.04
Luisada 1991		11	0.43	7	0.01	17	0.09	26	0.38	29	0.28	26	0.33
Lushtak 2004		65	0.28	81	0.00	70	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		36	0.36	21	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.16	69	0.04	52	0.08
Magaloff 1978		20	0.40	43	0.00	14	0.10	27	0.38	33	0.26	29	0.31
Magin 1975		67	0.28	87	0.00	75	0.04	68	0.04	53	0.06	63	0.05
Michalowski 1933		71	0.27	91	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	42	0.16	53	0.08
Milkina 1970		61	0.29	90	0.00	63	0.04	60	0.04	61	0.05	70	0.04
Mohovich 1999		53	0.32	70	0.00	59	0.04	61	0.04	83	0.04	74	0.04
Moravec 1969		10	0.43	33	0.00	12	0.13	6	0.62	9	0.51	11	0.56
Morozova 2008		38	0.35	29	0.00	32	0.07	33	0.30	45	0.10	36	0.17
Neighaus 1950		72	0.26	55	0.00	67	0.03	75	0.03	54	0.05	77	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		22	0.40	17	0.00	23	0.10	19	0.46	10	0.53	18	0.49
Ohlsson 1999		55	0.30	45	0.00	57	0.04	66	0.04	64	0.04	71	0.04
Osinska 1989		73	0.25	85	0.00	55	0.04	65	0.04	52	0.05	67	0.04
Pachmann 1927		85	0.18	88	0.00	88	0.03	82	0.03	74	0.04	81	0.03
Paderewski 1930		87	0.13	66	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	73	0.03	89	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		79	0.23	38	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	45	0.11	55	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		78	0.23	34	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	45	0.10	62	0.05
Poblocka 1999		7	0.45	15	0.00	5	0.23	7	0.61	12	0.59	5	0.60
Rabcewiczowa 1932		47	0.34	47	0.00	33	0.09	32	0.31	32	0.37	25	0.34
Rachmaninoff 1923		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rangell 2001		80	0.23	86	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	73	0.03	91	0.02
Richter 1976		24	0.38	72	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.17	52	0.06	44	0.10
Rosen 1989		50	0.34	40	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.31	40	0.16	34	0.22
Rosenthal 1930		2	0.53	2	0.13	2	0.39	2	0.85	5	0.87	1	0.86
Rosenthal 1931		66	0.28	16	0.00	47	0.06	51	0.06	19	0.59	35	0.19
Rosenthal 1931b		59	0.30	30	0.00	48	0.09	46	0.09	12	0.64	33	0.24
Rosenthal 1931c		40	0.35	28	0.00	28	0.10	29	0.34	13	0.56	22	0.44
Rosenthal 1931d		41	0.35	46	0.00	26	0.09	22	0.41	8	0.74	15	0.55
Rossi 2007		88	0.10	84	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	52	0.06	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		37	0.36	61	0.00	37	0.05	35	0.25	29	0.24	32	0.24
Rubinstein 1952		70	0.27	71	0.00	71	0.04	64	0.04	78	0.03	87	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		45	0.34	62	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	54	0.07	59	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		48	0.34	44	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	16	0.40	38	0.15
Shebanova 2002		49	0.34	54	0.00	52	0.08	47	0.08	48	0.07	56	0.07
Smith 1975		54	0.31	31	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	53	0.06	61	0.05
Sokolov 2002		60	0.29	32	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	63	0.04	68	0.04
Sztompka 1959		15	0.41	18	0.00	16	0.10	11	0.55	19	0.51	16	0.53
Tomsic 1995		83	0.19	76	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.03	80	0.03
Uninsky 1932		5	0.47	3	0.05	7	0.33	9	0.58	16	0.53	14	0.55
Uninsky 1971		42	0.35	36	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.13	51	0.06	50	0.09
Wasowski 1980		17	0.41	24	0.00	15	0.10	25	0.38	35	0.31	24	0.34
Zak 1937		51	0.33	80	0.00	53	0.05	53	0.05	49	0.07	58	0.06
Zak 1951		52	0.32	82	0.00	61	0.05	59	0.05	59	0.05	64	0.05
Average		1	0.58	1	0.60	1	0.60	1	0.86	41	0.19	23	0.40
Random 1		90	0.00	79	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	21	0.37	51	0.09
Random 2		89	0.05	51	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	22	0.33	60	0.06
Random 3		91	-0.01	49	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	50	0.05	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).