Block 1995

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		39	0.49	48	0.00	46	0.04	70	0.04	56	0.05	73	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		1	0.64	3	0.14	2	0.20	3	0.67	12	0.51	2	0.58
Ashkenazy 1981		63	0.41	84	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	57	0.05	58	0.05
Bacha 2000		66	0.40	49	0.00	58	0.04	77	0.04	65	0.04	60	0.04
Badura 1965		40	0.49	44	0.00	62	0.06	50	0.06	46	0.08	49	0.07
Barbosa 1983		45	0.47	16	0.01	16	0.07	22	0.34	25	0.44	10	0.39
Biret 1990		28	0.51	33	0.00	19	0.09	19	0.37	50	0.05	32	0.14
Blet 2003		55	0.44	15	0.01	53	0.05	56	0.05	33	0.19	39	0.10
Block 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blumental 1952		68	0.40	23	0.00	32	0.06	36	0.18	58	0.05	44	0.09
Boshniakovich 1969		20	0.52	72	0.00	24	0.06	24	0.31	44	0.10	24	0.18
Brailowsky 1960		11	0.56	9	0.01	18	0.08	14	0.47	8	0.66	4	0.56
Bunin 1987		74	0.37	67	0.00	75	0.04	64	0.04	58	0.05	76	0.04
Bunin 1987b		77	0.35	69	0.00	76	0.04	72	0.04	60	0.04	67	0.04
Chiu 1999		32	0.50	34	0.00	34	0.06	35	0.19	36	0.15	25	0.17
Cohen 1997		87	0.17	58	0.00	87	0.04	78	0.04	86	0.02	84	0.03
Cortot 1951		60	0.43	24	0.00	50	0.04	74	0.04	66	0.04	77	0.04
Csalog 1996		69	0.39	45	0.00	57	0.04	73	0.04	33	0.18	46	0.08
Czerny 1949		52	0.46	79	0.00	69	0.05	61	0.05	72	0.04	72	0.04
Czerny 1990		26	0.52	51	0.00	38	0.06	37	0.17	69	0.04	47	0.08
Duchoud 2007		76	0.35	85	0.00	65	0.04	67	0.04	56	0.05	74	0.04
Ezaki 2006		4	0.61	5	0.11	5	0.16	6	0.57	27	0.34	8	0.44
Falvay 1989		13	0.54	7	0.04	14	0.10	15	0.46	23	0.46	5	0.46
Farrell 1958		43	0.48	71	0.00	35	0.08	29	0.22	56	0.06	36	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		23	0.52	26	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.13	15	0.49	19	0.25
Fliere 1977		6	0.57	2	0.16	4	0.18	4	0.61	40	0.17	15	0.32
Fou 1978		9	0.56	17	0.01	11	0.16	5	0.60	28	0.27	9	0.40
Francois 1956		78	0.34	73	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		44	0.48	46	0.00	55	0.04	69	0.04	53	0.06	59	0.05
Friedman 1923b		46	0.47	80	0.00	56	0.06	49	0.06	55	0.06	52	0.06
Friedman 1930		57	0.43	70	0.00	73	0.07	45	0.07	62	0.05	51	0.06
Garcia 2007		62	0.41	81	0.00	70	0.04	63	0.04	41	0.19	43	0.09
Garcia 2007b		67	0.40	37	0.00	71	0.06	51	0.06	84	0.03	78	0.04
Gierzod 1998		34	0.50	27	0.00	15	0.09	23	0.32	51	0.06	31	0.14
Gornostaeva 1994		17	0.53	35	0.00	21	0.11	20	0.36	27	0.31	14	0.33
Groot 1988		15	0.54	6	0.04	7	0.12	13	0.49	12	0.43	6	0.46
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.62	12	0.01	6	0.15	9	0.53	44	0.11	20	0.24
Hatto 1993		51	0.46	29	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.11	55	0.05	50	0.07
Hatto 1997		49	0.47	42	0.00	52	0.06	48	0.06	62	0.04	57	0.05
Horowitz 1949		35	0.50	64	0.00	47	0.04	71	0.04	31	0.38	34	0.12
Indjic 1988		47	0.47	74	0.00	51	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.05	68	0.04
Kapell 1951		24	0.52	8	0.03	13	0.17	8	0.54	28	0.26	11	0.37
Kissin 1993		27	0.51	38	0.00	43	0.04	42	0.11	69	0.04	48	0.07
Kushner 1989		30	0.50	55	0.00	28	0.07	28	0.24	53	0.06	33	0.12
Luisada 1991		25	0.52	47	0.00	36	0.08	32	0.21	56	0.05	37	0.10
Lushtak 2004		29	0.51	65	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.13	47	0.07	40	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		48	0.47	59	0.00	45	0.05	60	0.05	46	0.06	55	0.05
Magaloff 1978		64	0.41	52	0.00	74	0.06	47	0.06	84	0.02	80	0.03
Magin 1975		38	0.49	75	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.22	67	0.04	42	0.09
Michalowski 1933		82	0.31	86	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03
Milkina 1970		12	0.55	87	0.00	20	0.09	21	0.34	45	0.07	28	0.15
Mohovich 1999		8	0.57	4	0.13	3	0.21	2	0.72	9	0.65	1	0.68
Moravec 1969		75	0.36	53	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	68	0.04	79	0.03
Morozova 2008		41	0.49	88	0.00	48	0.05	52	0.05	66	0.04	70	0.04
Neighaus 1950		31	0.50	14	0.01	27	0.06	30	0.22	37	0.16	21	0.19
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.43	56	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	54	0.05	65	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		54	0.44	50	0.00	30	0.06	34	0.19	52	0.05	38	0.10
Osinska 1989		5	0.58	21	0.00	12	0.17	10	0.52	59	0.06	22	0.18
Pachmann 1927		72	0.38	61	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	57	0.04	81	0.03
Paderewski 1930		86	0.22	89	0.00	86	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		61	0.43	32	0.00	67	0.05	53	0.05	78	0.03	61	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.32	76	0.00	64	0.04	65	0.04	61	0.05	64	0.04
Poblocka 1999		2	0.63	1	0.17	1	0.17	1	0.73	22	0.45	3	0.57
Rabcewiczowa 1932		58	0.43	18	0.01	54	0.04	66	0.04	58	0.05	66	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		36	0.49	60	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	64	0.04	63	0.04
Rangell 2001		53	0.44	13	0.01	23	0.07	25	0.28	17	0.43	13	0.35
Richter 1976		18	0.52	66	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	38	0.25	30	0.14
Rosen 1989		33	0.50	20	0.00	17	0.08	17	0.41	36	0.19	16	0.28
Rosenthal 1930		79	0.33	77	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.32	30	0.00	80	0.04	76	0.04	58	0.05	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.28	31	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	64	0.05	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		85	0.26	62	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.30	78	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.04	85	0.03
Rossi 2007		71	0.38	36	0.00	66	0.05	62	0.05	51	0.06	53	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		65	0.41	82	0.00	59	0.05	57	0.05	50	0.05	54	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		70	0.38	22	0.00	39	0.06	40	0.13	44	0.11	35	0.12
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.46	43	0.00	33	0.06	26	0.27	43	0.12	23	0.18
Schilhawsky 1960		56	0.44	68	0.00	72	0.07	46	0.07	76	0.03	56	0.05
Shebanova 2002		10	0.56	11	0.01	9	0.13	7	0.55	43	0.12	18	0.26
Smith 1975		42	0.48	54	0.00	37	0.07	38	0.16	65	0.04	45	0.08
Sokolov 2002		73	0.38	40	0.00	63	0.05	55	0.05	71	0.03	62	0.04
Sztompka 1959		14	0.54	39	0.00	10	0.14	12	0.50	43	0.15	17	0.27
Tomsic 1995		21	0.52	41	0.00	26	0.07	27	0.25	11	0.55	12	0.37
Uninsky 1932		37	0.49	28	0.00	61	0.05	59	0.05	65	0.04	71	0.04
Uninsky 1971		19	0.52	19	0.00	29	0.06	33	0.20	44	0.13	26	0.16
Wasowski 1980		7	0.57	10	0.01	8	0.12	11	0.51	26	0.39	7	0.45
Zak 1937		16	0.54	25	0.00	22	0.10	16	0.43	60	0.05	27	0.15
Zak 1951		22	0.52	83	0.00	25	0.07	18	0.39	63	0.05	29	0.14
Random 1		88	-0.02	57	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	4	0.49	41	0.10
Random 2		90	-0.10	63	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.06	90	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	36	0.17	75	0.04

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).