Malcuzynski 1961

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		24	0.54	72	0.00	28	0.06	30	0.18	54	0.05	49	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		7	0.60	7	0.02	7	0.19	9	0.50	21	0.46	7	0.48
Ashkenazy 1981		76	0.40	27	0.00	66	0.05	55	0.05	61	0.05	67	0.05
Bacha 2000		75	0.41	59	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	61	0.04	76	0.03
Badura 1965		58	0.46	50	0.00	41	0.05	38	0.13	55	0.05	53	0.08
Barbosa 1983		86	0.32	44	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	64	0.05	74	0.04
Biret 1990		38	0.50	23	0.00	21	0.09	24	0.28	42	0.11	28	0.18
Blet 2003		82	0.38	88	0.00	86	0.04	68	0.04	66	0.03	84	0.03
Block 1995		49	0.47	75	0.00	55	0.06	46	0.06	60	0.05	64	0.05
Blumental 1952		62	0.44	18	0.01	20	0.10	23	0.30	31	0.22	21	0.26
Boshniakovich 1969		2	0.67	4	0.07	3	0.19	6	0.60	13	0.57	4	0.58
Brailowsky 1960		72	0.41	45	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	52	0.06	69	0.04
Bunin 1987		53	0.46	34	0.00	47	0.04	70	0.04	16	0.45	38	0.13
Bunin 1987b		55	0.46	42	0.00	48	0.05	49	0.05	17	0.45	31	0.15
Chiu 1999		85	0.33	66	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	72	0.04	78	0.03
Cohen 1997		87	0.14	81	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.03
Cortot 1951		17	0.56	40	0.00	31	0.06	27	0.24	9	0.59	14	0.38
Csalog 1996		83	0.35	46	0.00	85	0.03	74	0.03	73	0.03	83	0.03
Czerny 1949		1	0.69	1	0.45	1	0.45	1	0.78	2	0.70	1	0.74
Czerny 1990		6	0.60	19	0.01	13	0.09	7	0.56	37	0.21	19	0.34
Duchoud 2007		81	0.39	20	0.00	63	0.04	65	0.04	43	0.13	57	0.07
Ezaki 2006		9	0.59	24	0.00	6	0.16	3	0.65	14	0.56	3	0.60
Falvay 1989		69	0.41	37	0.00	74	0.02	87	0.02	70	0.05	79	0.03
Farrell 1958		31	0.52	26	0.00	32	0.06	28	0.24	54	0.06	40	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		80	0.40	82	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	62	0.04	85	0.03
Fliere 1977		14	0.57	60	0.00	22	0.10	17	0.41	58	0.05	35	0.14
Fou 1978		43	0.49	77	0.00	51	0.04	61	0.04	76	0.04	71	0.04
Francois 1956		63	0.44	41	0.00	78	0.03	84	0.03	61	0.04	89	0.03
Friedman 1923		56	0.46	61	0.00	59	0.04	57	0.04	40	0.18	55	0.08
Friedman 1923b		57	0.46	51	0.00	58	0.04	56	0.04	41	0.17	54	0.08
Friedman 1930		47	0.48	57	0.00	61	0.05	48	0.05	44	0.14	52	0.08
Garcia 2007		35	0.51	69	0.00	38	0.05	37	0.13	19	0.45	24	0.24
Garcia 2007b		42	0.49	38	0.00	39	0.05	42	0.09	38	0.13	42	0.11
Gierzod 1998		10	0.59	62	0.00	15	0.12	13	0.46	54	0.06	30	0.17
Gornostaeva 1994		4	0.64	13	0.01	4	0.16	12	0.47	16	0.49	9	0.48
Groot 1988		65	0.43	52	0.00	60	0.05	54	0.05	66	0.04	75	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.64	5	0.05	2	0.23	2	0.68	15	0.59	2	0.63
Hatto 1993		74	0.41	83	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.06	57	0.05	68	0.05
Hatto 1997		71	0.41	58	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.07	43	0.12	48	0.09
Horowitz 1949		36	0.50	53	0.00	54	0.05	51	0.05	29	0.44	33	0.15
Indjic 1988		68	0.42	33	0.00	34	0.05	39	0.12	43	0.12	41	0.12
Kapell 1951		8	0.59	12	0.01	11	0.13	4	0.62	23	0.33	10	0.45
Kissin 1993		12	0.58	14	0.01	14	0.09	10	0.48	42	0.24	17	0.34
Kushner 1989		30	0.52	48	0.00	50	0.04	62	0.04	63	0.05	72	0.04
Luisada 1991		77	0.40	85	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	74	0.03	77	0.03
Lushtak 2004		73	0.41	78	0.00	72	0.03	72	0.03	75	0.03	86	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Magaloff 1978		40	0.50	55	0.00	53	0.05	47	0.05	41	0.13	51	0.08
Magin 1975		19	0.56	79	0.00	33	0.05	29	0.21	62	0.04	46	0.09
Michalowski 1933		32	0.52	73	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.15	28	0.28	25	0.20
Milkina 1970		3	0.65	35	0.00	5	0.26	5	0.61	24	0.47	5	0.54
Mohovich 1999		45	0.48	63	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	55	0.05	66	0.05
Moravec 1969		29	0.53	9	0.02	19	0.10	18	0.40	10	0.60	6	0.49
Morozova 2008		59	0.46	30	0.00	57	0.05	50	0.05	59	0.05	63	0.05
Neighaus 1950		37	0.50	54	0.00	56	0.05	52	0.05	43	0.09	59	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		20	0.56	21	0.00	26	0.09	26	0.25	25	0.33	20	0.29
Ohlsson 1999		50	0.47	64	0.00	64	0.04	67	0.04	51	0.05	73	0.04
Osinska 1989		13	0.58	25	0.00	16	0.13	14	0.46	57	0.06	29	0.17
Pachmann 1927		66	0.42	90	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	33	0.25	47	0.09
Paderewski 1930		54	0.46	86	0.00	40	0.04	41	0.11	28	0.31	27	0.18
Perlemuter 1992		79	0.40	67	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	40	0.15	50	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.42	32	0.00	75	0.02	86	0.02	52	0.06	81	0.03
Poblocka 1999		23	0.54	56	0.00	36	0.05	31	0.17	47	0.06	43	0.10
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.44	28	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	71	0.04	82	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.56	10	0.02	10	0.13	8	0.54	23	0.31	12	0.41
Rangell 2001		27	0.53	31	0.00	17	0.12	22	0.33	12	0.48	13	0.40
Richter 1976		22	0.55	15	0.01	23	0.10	25	0.28	20	0.50	16	0.37
Rosen 1989		34	0.51	70	0.00	52	0.04	58	0.04	48	0.06	65	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		28	0.53	8	0.02	27	0.06	33	0.16	24	0.40	23	0.25
Rosenthal 1931		51	0.46	87	0.00	76	0.02	85	0.02	33	0.24	56	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		60	0.45	76	0.00	77	0.04	69	0.04	32	0.27	45	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		41	0.49	43	0.00	42	0.06	40	0.11	26	0.38	26	0.20
Rosenthal 1931d		48	0.47	39	0.00	62	0.04	59	0.04	26	0.40	39	0.13
Rossi 2007		33	0.51	22	0.00	25	0.08	20	0.35	5	0.56	11	0.44
Rubinstein 1939		70	0.41	29	0.00	65	0.04	60	0.04	54	0.05	70	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		84	0.33	16	0.01	81	0.03	77	0.03	76	0.03	88	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		78	0.40	47	0.00	43	0.04	44	0.07	61	0.05	61	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		16	0.56	17	0.01	12	0.12	15	0.44	34	0.26	18	0.34
Shebanova 2002		26	0.54	65	0.00	46	0.04	64	0.04	45	0.08	62	0.06
Smith 1975		52	0.46	89	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	78	0.03	80	0.03
Sokolov 2002		39	0.50	11	0.01	35	0.05	34	0.15	39	0.12	37	0.13
Sztompka 1959		11	0.58	6	0.04	18	0.17	19	0.38	54	0.06	34	0.15
Tomsic 1995		64	0.43	49	0.00	73	0.03	83	0.03	44	0.11	60	0.06
Uninsky 1932		15	0.57	3	0.08	8	0.14	11	0.48	16	0.48	8	0.48
Uninsky 1971		25	0.54	36	0.00	24	0.11	21	0.33	39	0.19	22	0.25
Wasowski 1980		21	0.55	2	0.09	9	0.10	16	0.43	29	0.31	15	0.37
Zak 1937		46	0.48	74	0.00	30	0.07	35	0.15	39	0.14	36	0.14
Zak 1951		44	0.48	68	0.00	29	0.05	32	0.17	41	0.13	32	0.15
Random 1		89	-0.05	71	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	8	0.47	44	0.10
Random 2		90	-0.10	80	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	73	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		88	-0.02	84	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	19	0.28	58	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).