Csalog 1996

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		33	0.48	36	0.00	51	0.03	66	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		71	0.33	49	0.00	63	0.05	49	0.05	82	0.03	52	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		78	0.31	81	0.00	72	0.04	56	0.04	72	0.04	55	0.04
Bacha 2000		45	0.44	19	0.01	18	0.07	20	0.33	32	0.14	18	0.21
Badura 1965		72	0.31	14	0.01	50	0.03	67	0.03	58	0.05	54	0.04
Barbosa 1983		82	0.26	15	0.01	19	0.07	31	0.23	32	0.17	22	0.20
Biret 1990		26	0.51	43	0.00	26	0.06	27	0.28	63	0.04	32	0.11
Blet 2003		13	0.56	23	0.00	23	0.07	24	0.30	33	0.19	14	0.24
Block 1995		80	0.29	26	0.00	74	0.02	83	0.02	55	0.05	82	0.03
Blumental 1952		15	0.55	6	0.03	5	0.11	4	0.48	29	0.16	13	0.28
Boshniakovich 1969		61	0.36	48	0.00	75	0.02	85	0.02	73	0.04	83	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		64	0.35	59	0.00	68	0.03	68	0.03	65	0.04	61	0.03
Bunin 1987		65	0.35	52	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	54	0.06	56	0.04
Bunin 1987b		66	0.34	87	0.00	77	0.02	84	0.02	53	0.06	67	0.03
Chiu 1999		68	0.33	33	0.00	20	0.07	25	0.28	36	0.18	17	0.22
Cohen 1997		59	0.38	53	0.00	16	0.07	21	0.32	8	0.45	7	0.38
Cortot 1951		39	0.46	84	0.00	55	0.05	48	0.05	72	0.04	59	0.04
Csalog 1996		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1949		67	0.34	88	0.00	81	0.04	51	0.04	87	0.02	77	0.03
Czerny 1990		20	0.52	85	0.00	22	0.08	16	0.36	71	0.03	36	0.10
Duchoud 2007		81	0.28	55	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03
Ezaki 2006		55	0.39	42	0.00	39	0.04	37	0.15	81	0.03	40	0.07
Falvay 1989		12	0.57	2	0.12	4	0.14	5	0.47	3	0.56	2	0.51
Farrell 1958		75	0.31	61	0.00	69	0.04	53	0.04	77	0.04	49	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		4	0.62	3	0.08	3	0.16	7	0.44	5	0.50	5	0.47
Fliere 1977		35	0.47	20	0.01	41	0.06	41	0.12	82	0.03	45	0.06
Fou 1978		27	0.50	37	0.00	30	0.06	26	0.28	47	0.05	27	0.12
Francois 1956		29	0.50	78	0.00	34	0.06	33	0.18	45	0.06	37	0.10
Friedman 1923		87	0.22	82	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		86	0.22	45	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.23	73	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	67	0.04	75	0.03
Garcia 2007		44	0.45	41	0.00	58	0.04	63	0.04	83	0.03	81	0.03
Garcia 2007b		32	0.48	65	0.00	45	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.03
Gierzod 1998		34	0.47	46	0.00	53	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		51	0.41	66	0.00	70	0.05	47	0.05	83	0.02	85	0.03
Groot 1988		50	0.41	56	0.00	42	0.04	44	0.08	73	0.04	46	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		60	0.37	28	0.00	57	0.05	46	0.05	69	0.04	60	0.04
Hatto 1993		79	0.30	18	0.01	61	0.04	60	0.04	74	0.04	58	0.04
Hatto 1997		76	0.31	30	0.00	60	0.03	71	0.03	72	0.04	76	0.03
Horowitz 1949		84	0.23	86	0.00	87	0.04	58	0.04	84	0.03	69	0.03
Indjic 1988		77	0.31	17	0.01	62	0.05	50	0.05	74	0.04	51	0.04
Kapell 1951		1	0.77	1	0.38	1	0.38	1	0.70	12	0.33	3	0.48
Kissin 1993		17	0.53	10	0.02	36	0.08	32	0.20	75	0.03	38	0.08
Kushner 1989		10	0.58	8	0.02	11	0.08	9	0.42	43	0.11	20	0.21
Luisada 1991		56	0.39	79	0.00	40	0.04	39	0.12	67	0.04	41	0.07
Lushtak 2004		36	0.47	35	0.00	17	0.09	13	0.38	41	0.11	23	0.20
Malcuzynski 1961		74	0.31	54	0.00	82	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03	68	0.03
Magaloff 1978		57	0.38	40	0.00	71	0.05	45	0.05	74	0.04	48	0.04
Magin 1975		47	0.43	47	0.00	67	0.04	61	0.04	87	0.03	66	0.03
Michalowski 1933		49	0.42	34	0.00	48	0.04	57	0.04	61	0.05	50	0.04
Milkina 1970		14	0.56	13	0.01	28	0.07	18	0.34	79	0.03	34	0.10
Mohovich 1999		5	0.60	16	0.01	6	0.13	3	0.51	37	0.25	8	0.36
Moravec 1969		7	0.60	25	0.00	12	0.07	11	0.39	14	0.48	6	0.43
Morozova 2008		54	0.40	31	0.00	59	0.04	54	0.04	72	0.03	74	0.03
Neighaus 1950		73	0.31	90	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	64	0.05	57	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		41	0.46	83	0.00	56	0.04	52	0.04	70	0.03	65	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		69	0.33	29	0.00	64	0.03	70	0.03	87	0.03	72	0.03
Osinska 1989		30	0.50	57	0.00	37	0.08	30	0.26	55	0.05	31	0.11
Pachmann 1927		63	0.35	62	0.00	76	0.02	86	0.02	73	0.03	89	0.02
Paderewski 1930		18	0.53	89	0.00	35	0.07	35	0.17	58	0.03	42	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		23	0.52	21	0.01	8	0.09	14	0.38	42	0.13	15	0.22
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.33	51	0.00	80	0.03	69	0.03	73	0.04	64	0.03
Poblocka 1999		9	0.59	12	0.01	13	0.07	8	0.43	44	0.11	16	0.22
Rabcewiczowa 1932		3	0.63	63	0.00	7	0.15	6	0.46	30	0.21	10	0.31
Rachmaninoff 1923		62	0.36	71	0.00	66	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03	63	0.03
Rangell 2001		48	0.43	44	0.00	47	0.03	65	0.03	53	0.04	86	0.03
Richter 1976		83	0.25	60	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	67	0.04	70	0.03
Rosen 1989		6	0.60	32	0.00	21	0.07	15	0.37	52	0.05	25	0.14
Rosenthal 1930		8	0.59	11	0.02	14	0.07	12	0.39	21	0.26	9	0.32
Rosenthal 1931		21	0.52	64	0.00	38	0.06	38	0.13	30	0.22	24	0.17
Rosenthal 1931b		24	0.52	76	0.00	43	0.03	42	0.11	38	0.13	30	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		11	0.58	58	0.00	27	0.06	28	0.27	18	0.33	11	0.30
Rosenthal 1931d		28	0.50	77	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.09	34	0.17	29	0.12
Rossi 2007		58	0.38	27	0.00	25	0.06	36	0.16	27	0.25	21	0.20
Rubinstein 1939		43	0.45	72	0.00	29	0.07	29	0.26	33	0.17	19	0.21
Rubinstein 1952		2	0.68	5	0.04	2	0.21	2	0.52	4	0.55	1	0.53
Rubinstein 1966		46	0.44	9	0.02	15	0.08	19	0.34	38	0.23	12	0.28
Schilhawsky 1960		53	0.41	50	0.00	65	0.03	80	0.03	73	0.04	73	0.03
Shebanova 2002		19	0.53	22	0.01	9	0.09	17	0.34	68	0.04	28	0.12
Smith 1975		37	0.47	74	0.00	33	0.06	34	0.18	41	0.08	26	0.12
Sokolov 2002		42	0.46	24	0.00	46	0.04	62	0.04	74	0.03	62	0.03
Sztompka 1959		52	0.41	39	0.00	54	0.04	59	0.04	85	0.03	71	0.03
Tomsic 1995		16	0.54	7	0.03	10	0.08	10	0.41	9	0.56	4	0.48
Uninsky 1932		38	0.46	67	0.00	49	0.04	64	0.04	71	0.04	53	0.04
Uninsky 1971		31	0.49	4	0.05	24	0.07	40	0.12	75	0.04	43	0.07
Wasowski 1980		40	0.46	80	0.00	52	0.04	55	0.04	67	0.05	47	0.04
Zak 1937		22	0.52	69	0.00	32	0.08	22	0.31	82	0.03	33	0.10
Zak 1951		25	0.52	38	0.00	31	0.06	23	0.31	72	0.03	35	0.10
Random 1		89	-0.14	70	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	19	0.28	44	0.07
Random 2		90	-0.22	75	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	80	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		88	-0.09	68	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	25	0.31	39	0.08

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).