Anderszewski 2003

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		19	0.74	62	0.00	19	0.07	15	0.31	69	0.04	47	0.11
Anderszewski 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ashkenazy 1981		41	0.67	50	0.00	15	0.07	25	0.26	27	0.26	29	0.26
Bacha 2000		49	0.66	37	0.00	51	0.04	56	0.04	24	0.22	54	0.09
Badura 1965		32	0.70	69	0.00	55	0.05	51	0.05	35	0.32	41	0.13
Barbosa 1983		72	0.54	41	0.00	52	0.05	52	0.05	22	0.24	46	0.11
Biret 1990		30	0.70	8	0.04	22	0.07	17	0.30	18	0.38	11	0.34
Blet 2003		58	0.61	82	0.00	75	0.04	68	0.04	51	0.06	74	0.05
Block 1995		37	0.69	23	0.01	12	0.08	14	0.32	8	0.42	8	0.37
Blumental 1952		70	0.55	55	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	74	0.04	84	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		11	0.76	30	0.01	16	0.07	19	0.29	29	0.34	16	0.31
Brailowsky 1960		12	0.75	17	0.01	42	0.06	43	0.15	20	0.34	32	0.23
Bunin 1987		84	0.42	66	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	40	0.19	60	0.08
Bunin 1987b		85	0.40	76	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	41	0.18	63	0.07
Chiu 1999		40	0.67	10	0.03	14	0.07	35	0.22	17	0.30	27	0.26
Cohen 1997		86	0.39	63	0.00	88	0.03	73	0.03	53	0.05	86	0.04
Cortot 1951		56	0.62	64	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	47	0.05	87	0.04
Csalog 1996		87	0.33	68	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	50	0.04	90	0.03
Czerny 1949		26	0.72	35	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	42	0.19	43	0.12
Czerny 1990		7	0.77	21	0.01	25	0.06	22	0.26	27	0.26	30	0.26
Duchoud 2007		76	0.50	51	0.00	57	0.04	65	0.04	53	0.05	82	0.04
Ezaki 2006		2	0.83	6	0.05	3	0.21	3	0.50	5	0.56	2	0.53
Falvay 1989		73	0.52	24	0.01	85	0.03	86	0.03	49	0.09	72	0.05
Farrell 1958		47	0.67	83	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.16	32	0.27	35	0.21
Ferenczy 1958		55	0.64	42	0.00	72	0.04	61	0.04	37	0.11	67	0.07
Fliere 1977		5	0.81	7	0.05	6	0.17	4	0.48	26	0.27	9	0.36
Fou 1978		36	0.69	20	0.01	45	0.06	45	0.11	43	0.10	48	0.10
Francois 1956		53	0.64	31	0.01	59	0.04	63	0.04	43	0.11	69	0.07
Friedman 1923		13	0.75	26	0.01	35	0.08	20	0.27	36	0.33	19	0.30
Friedman 1923b		21	0.74	39	0.00	36	0.07	23	0.26	38	0.33	22	0.29
Friedman 1930		8	0.76	14	0.01	34	0.05	27	0.25	34	0.34	21	0.29
Garcia 2007		48	0.66	48	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	46	0.08	52	0.10
Garcia 2007b		63	0.59	85	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	55	0.05	76	0.05
Gierzod 1998		18	0.74	36	0.00	10	0.08	10	0.38	30	0.27	13	0.32
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.76	3	0.10	5	0.13	6	0.45	2	0.61	3	0.52
Groot 1988		61	0.60	56	0.00	49	0.04	58	0.04	39	0.21	58	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		4	0.82	11	0.02	7	0.17	5	0.46	15	0.40	6	0.43
Hatto 1993		27	0.70	28	0.01	38	0.07	31	0.24	24	0.30	26	0.27
Hatto 1997		23	0.73	70	0.00	39	0.10	29	0.24	27	0.30	25	0.27
Horowitz 1949		46	0.67	67	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	34	0.36	38	0.15
Indjic 1988		22	0.73	27	0.01	37	0.07	28	0.25	27	0.30	24	0.27
Kapell 1951		66	0.58	40	0.00	30	0.06	36	0.21	58	0.05	49	0.10
Kissin 1993		38	0.68	19	0.01	40	0.07	38	0.21	43	0.10	39	0.14
Kushner 1989		20	0.74	13	0.02	29	0.06	18	0.30	27	0.31	18	0.30
Luisada 1991		9	0.76	90	0.00	8	0.09	16	0.31	20	0.31	14	0.31
Lushtak 2004		51	0.65	57	0.00	60	0.04	57	0.04	65	0.04	83	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		64	0.59	58	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	25	0.24	50	0.10
Magaloff 1978		57	0.62	61	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	51	0.06	78	0.04
Magin 1975		34	0.69	4	0.10	2	0.14	7	0.44	13	0.46	4	0.45
Michalowski 1933		62	0.60	65	0.00	70	0.02	88	0.02	66	0.04	89	0.03
Milkina 1970		6	0.77	32	0.01	11	0.08	8	0.42	11	0.49	5	0.45
Mohovich 1999		29	0.70	5	0.06	9	0.08	11	0.37	30	0.33	10	0.35
Moravec 1969		83	0.43	45	0.00	87	0.03	78	0.03	59	0.05	77	0.04
Morozova 2008		39	0.68	79	0.00	33	0.06	39	0.19	34	0.20	36	0.19
Neighaus 1950		14	0.75	77	0.00	31	0.06	24	0.26	33	0.21	34	0.23
Niedzielski 1931		50	0.65	53	0.00	53	0.04	55	0.04	43	0.13	62	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		17	0.75	15	0.01	13	0.07	13	0.33	27	0.30	15	0.31
Osinska 1989		3	0.82	2	0.13	4	0.21	1	0.61	5	0.61	1	0.61
Pachmann 1927		42	0.67	87	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	33	0.16	65	0.07
Paderewski 1930		52	0.64	16	0.01	65	0.04	69	0.04	41	0.11	64	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		35	0.69	59	0.00	48	0.08	46	0.08	70	0.04	70	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		82	0.45	88	0.00	67	0.03	74	0.03	38	0.19	59	0.08
Poblocka 1999		60	0.61	22	0.01	17	0.07	37	0.21	43	0.13	37	0.17
Rabcewiczowa 1932		69	0.56	52	0.00	81	0.04	59	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		15	0.75	44	0.00	32	0.05	33	0.23	26	0.24	33	0.23
Rangell 2001		80	0.48	25	0.01	23	0.06	41	0.17	6	0.49	23	0.29
Richter 1976		68	0.56	38	0.00	69	0.03	76	0.03	39	0.28	56	0.09
Rosen 1989		28	0.70	29	0.01	20	0.07	32	0.24	27	0.27	31	0.25
Rosenthal 1930		71	0.55	9	0.03	56	0.06	49	0.06	21	0.27	40	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.50	46	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	36	0.16	66	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.50	72	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	38	0.14	71	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.45	43	0.00	84	0.05	53	0.05	52	0.05	75	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		74	0.51	80	0.00	83	0.03	77	0.03	37	0.16	68	0.07
Rossi 2007		44	0.67	33	0.01	68	0.04	67	0.04	27	0.28	44	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		67	0.56	78	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	39	0.14	61	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		88	0.28	60	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	53	0.06	88	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		43	0.67	71	0.00	63	0.04	60	0.04	38	0.24	51	0.10
Schilhawsky 1960		54	0.64	54	0.00	50	0.05	54	0.05	64	0.04	80	0.04
Shebanova 2002		33	0.69	81	0.00	43	0.07	40	0.19	65	0.04	57	0.09
Smith 1975		24	0.72	12	0.02	24	0.06	21	0.26	18	0.32	20	0.29
Sokolov 2002		59	0.61	34	0.00	28	0.07	34	0.23	13	0.38	17	0.30
Sztompka 1959		16	0.75	49	0.00	21	0.10	9	0.39	36	0.17	28	0.26
Tomsic 1995		77	0.50	73	0.00	79	0.03	85	0.03	34	0.28	55	0.09
Uninsky 1932		65	0.58	47	0.00	66	0.03	72	0.03	66	0.05	81	0.04
Uninsky 1971		75	0.50	86	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	60	0.06	73	0.05
Wasowski 1980		25	0.72	18	0.01	18	0.06	12	0.33	15	0.32	12	0.32
Zak 1937		31	0.70	75	0.00	26	0.06	26	0.25	50	0.05	45	0.11
Zak 1951		45	0.67	74	0.00	27	0.06	30	0.24	46	0.06	42	0.12
Average		1	0.85	1	0.14	1	0.14	2	0.60	34	0.24	7	0.38
Random 1		91	-0.23	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	29	0.20	85	0.04
Random 2		90	-0.15	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	63	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.09	89	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	13	0.46	53	0.10

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).