Schilhawsky 1960

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		47	0.33	47	0.00	73	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		39	0.34	8	0.01	14	0.08	31	0.26	52	0.07	31	0.13
Ashkenazy 1981		26	0.35	33	0.00	54	0.06	51	0.06	65	0.06	51	0.06
Bacha 2000		49	0.33	41	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.13	38	0.20	20	0.16
Badura 1965		71	0.26	82	0.00	64	0.04	65	0.04	66	0.03	84	0.03
Barbosa 1983		3	0.46	19	0.00	3	0.20	3	0.68	24	0.40	3	0.52
Biret 1990		10	0.40	18	0.01	9	0.15	6	0.59	25	0.44	4	0.51
Blet 2003		15	0.38	29	0.00	29	0.06	30	0.28	37	0.23	16	0.25
Block 1995		54	0.31	59	0.00	52	0.08	46	0.08	82	0.03	56	0.05
Blumental 1952		7	0.42	3	0.04	5	0.18	5	0.61	24	0.47	2	0.54
Boshniakovich 1969		4	0.45	4	0.03	2	0.25	2	0.68	25	0.37	5	0.50
Brailowsky 1960		48	0.33	21	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	49	0.07	48	0.06
Bunin 1987		28	0.35	27	0.00	22	0.07	21	0.37	28	0.33	11	0.35
Bunin 1987b		37	0.34	52	0.00	28	0.10	27	0.32	31	0.32	12	0.32
Chiu 1999		11	0.40	5	0.02	18	0.10	13	0.42	62	0.05	27	0.14
Cohen 1997		85	0.21	64	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	87	0.02	91	0.02
Cortot 1951		58	0.30	49	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	37	0.20	40	0.09
Csalog 1996		63	0.29	45	0.00	59	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.04	81	0.03
Czerny 1949		62	0.29	56	0.00	66	0.04	75	0.04	57	0.05	69	0.04
Czerny 1990		33	0.35	10	0.01	19	0.09	14	0.41	50	0.07	19	0.17
Duchoud 2007		87	0.17	89	0.00	87	0.04	76	0.04	81	0.04	70	0.04
Ezaki 2006		53	0.32	86	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.04
Falvay 1989		72	0.26	48	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03	79	0.03
Farrell 1958		81	0.24	76	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	71	0.04	67	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		83	0.22	39	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.04	82	0.03
Fliere 1977		5	0.44	69	0.00	10	0.10	8	0.58	63	0.04	22	0.15
Fou 1978		61	0.29	36	0.00	69	0.04	63	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.04
Francois 1956		59	0.30	32	0.00	74	0.04	68	0.04	44	0.12	46	0.07
Friedman 1923		60	0.29	58	0.00	56	0.04	64	0.04	53	0.06	61	0.05
Friedman 1923b		64	0.29	83	0.00	62	0.05	61	0.05	64	0.05	58	0.05
Friedman 1930		25	0.36	70	0.00	25	0.08	17	0.40	31	0.31	10	0.35
Garcia 2007		79	0.24	53	0.00	72	0.05	54	0.05	71	0.04	71	0.04
Garcia 2007b		51	0.32	40	0.00	47	0.06	52	0.06	71	0.04	60	0.05
Gierzod 1998		19	0.37	51	0.00	27	0.08	22	0.37	57	0.06	25	0.15
Gornostaeva 1994		76	0.25	87	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03
Groot 1988		50	0.33	31	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	82	0.03	74	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		2	0.48	9	0.01	8	0.16	10	0.53	53	0.06	18	0.18
Hatto 1993		27	0.35	60	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.25	76	0.04	36	0.10
Hatto 1997		36	0.34	46	0.00	34	0.07	39	0.14	72	0.04	43	0.07
Horowitz 1949		45	0.33	7	0.02	31	0.06	34	0.17	33	0.36	15	0.25
Indjic 1988		18	0.37	25	0.00	23	0.07	23	0.36	66	0.05	30	0.13
Kapell 1951		24	0.36	14	0.01	13	0.07	12	0.45	59	0.06	21	0.16
Kissin 1993		52	0.32	63	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	75	0.05	55	0.05
Kushner 1989		17	0.38	42	0.00	26	0.08	15	0.40	64	0.05	29	0.14
Luisada 1991		16	0.38	43	0.00	35	0.06	38	0.14	45	0.09	34	0.11
Lushtak 2004		20	0.37	54	0.00	20	0.08	18	0.40	30	0.25	13	0.32
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.41	22	0.00	7	0.16	7	0.58	37	0.24	8	0.37
Magaloff 1978		12	0.39	78	0.00	16	0.10	19	0.39	51	0.05	28	0.14
Magin 1975		35	0.34	72	0.00	38	0.06	35	0.17	56	0.05	37	0.09
Michalowski 1933		30	0.35	23	0.00	24	0.07	24	0.35	6	0.60	6	0.46
Milkina 1970		46	0.33	11	0.01	49	0.05	53	0.05	60	0.05	53	0.05
Mohovich 1999		40	0.34	24	0.00	40	0.05	45	0.09	54	0.05	45	0.07
Moravec 1969		66	0.28	55	0.00	61	0.04	71	0.04	78	0.03	76	0.03
Morozova 2008		38	0.34	26	0.00	37	0.05	37	0.15	82	0.03	42	0.07
Neighaus 1950		67	0.28	35	0.00	75	0.04	67	0.04	87	0.02	87	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.24	44	0.00	76	0.05	58	0.05	84	0.03	65	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		21	0.37	30	0.00	15	0.08	26	0.34	83	0.03	35	0.10
Osinska 1989		14	0.38	81	0.00	30	0.06	28	0.31	50	0.05	32	0.12
Pachmann 1927		56	0.31	77	0.00	60	0.05	59	0.05	58	0.06	54	0.05
Paderewski 1930		74	0.26	66	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	46	0.09	49	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		34	0.35	75	0.00	51	0.07	47	0.07	61	0.05	47	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.27	68	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	60	0.04	64	0.04
Poblocka 1999		13	0.39	16	0.01	6	0.12	11	0.46	37	0.28	9	0.36
Rabcewiczowa 1932		68	0.27	67	0.00	58	0.05	60	0.05	75	0.04	66	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		41	0.34	12	0.01	17	0.10	16	0.40	50	0.06	23	0.15
Rangell 2001		77	0.25	88	0.00	77	0.04	66	0.04	86	0.02	86	0.03
Richter 1976		29	0.35	2	0.05	12	0.09	25	0.35	37	0.25	14	0.30
Rosen 1989		32	0.35	20	0.00	36	0.05	33	0.19	58	0.04	39	0.09
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.26	62	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	47	0.06	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.20	91	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.21	79	0.00	80	0.05	56	0.05	54	0.05	59	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		75	0.25	74	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.24	15	0.01	53	0.06	50	0.06	34	0.23	33	0.12
Rossi 2007		82	0.23	73	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	51	0.06	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		65	0.28	17	0.01	45	0.05	44	0.10	76	0.03	52	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		44	0.33	61	0.00	46	0.05	57	0.05	70	0.04	75	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		42	0.34	65	0.00	44	0.05	41	0.13	76	0.03	50	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Shebanova 2002		22	0.37	13	0.01	21	0.11	20	0.38	60	0.06	24	0.15
Smith 1975		43	0.33	28	0.00	65	0.03	77	0.03	52	0.06	63	0.04
Sokolov 2002		69	0.27	6	0.02	57	0.04	73	0.04	88	0.02	77	0.03
Sztompka 1959		57	0.31	71	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	57	0.05	41	0.07
Tomsic 1995		88	0.16	80	0.00	88	0.03	78	0.03	89	0.02	89	0.02
Uninsky 1932		55	0.31	90	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.13	64	0.04	44	0.07
Uninsky 1971		23	0.36	34	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.16	66	0.05	38	0.09
Wasowski 1980		31	0.35	50	0.00	32	0.07	29	0.30	46	0.07	26	0.14
Zak 1937		9	0.40	37	0.00	11	0.13	9	0.57	25	0.35	7	0.45
Zak 1951		6	0.43	38	0.00	4	0.18	4	0.65	13	0.49	1	0.56
Average		1	0.56	1	0.63	1	0.62	1	0.79	63	0.05	17	0.20
Random 1		90	-0.01	85	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	39	0.13	73	0.04
Random 2		89	0.00	57	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	48	0.06	90	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.05	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	30	0.22	57	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).