Blumental 1952

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	0.69	13	0.02	6	0.08	8	0.34	29	0.30	11	0.32
Anderszewski 2003		61	0.55	67	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	62	0.04	74	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		20	0.69	31	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	59	0.04	78	0.04
Bacha 2000		9	0.72	16	0.01	11	0.06	10	0.29	2	0.54	5	0.40
Badura 1965		74	0.47	79	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	69	0.04	86	0.03
Barbosa 1983		56	0.57	19	0.01	14	0.05	40	0.10	19	0.30	35	0.17
Biret 1990		4	0.75	20	0.01	8	0.08	6	0.39	9	0.53	3	0.45
Blet 2003		49	0.60	63	0.00	56	0.04	62	0.04	42	0.14	54	0.07
Block 1995		85	0.31	70	0.00	84	0.03	76	0.03	70	0.04	87	0.03
Blumental 1952		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Boshniakovich 1969		76	0.46	59	0.00	45	0.04	44	0.08	72	0.04	61	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		40	0.62	47	0.00	47	0.04	58	0.04	16	0.38	42	0.12
Bunin 1987		84	0.32	83	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	68	0.04	89	0.03
Bunin 1987b		86	0.31	81	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.04	82	0.03
Chiu 1999		8	0.73	15	0.01	9	0.08	15	0.25	11	0.35	15	0.30
Cohen 1997		16	0.70	80	0.00	24	0.04	29	0.17	6	0.47	20	0.28
Cortot 1951		47	0.60	69	0.00	65	0.06	48	0.06	56	0.04	67	0.05
Csalog 1996		60	0.55	75	0.00	18	0.05	30	0.16	4	0.48	19	0.28
Czerny 1949		64	0.52	14	0.01	21	0.05	41	0.10	44	0.15	44	0.12
Czerny 1990		2	0.77	1	0.24	1	0.24	1	0.60	3	0.55	1	0.57
Duchoud 2007		72	0.49	60	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	61	0.04	85	0.03
Ezaki 2006		6	0.73	8	0.04	12	0.06	11	0.29	24	0.34	12	0.31
Falvay 1989		35	0.64	48	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	14	0.51	40	0.16
Farrell 1958		10	0.71	84	0.00	27	0.05	28	0.18	15	0.45	18	0.28
Ferenczy 1958		48	0.60	9	0.03	16	0.06	20	0.21	13	0.39	16	0.29
Fliere 1977		42	0.61	34	0.00	51	0.04	66	0.04	68	0.04	68	0.04
Fou 1978		5	0.74	42	0.00	26	0.05	9	0.32	23	0.30	13	0.31
Francois 1956		33	0.64	57	0.00	32	0.04	32	0.16	10	0.49	21	0.28
Friedman 1923		55	0.57	55	0.00	73	0.04	65	0.04	45	0.12	57	0.07
Friedman 1923b		52	0.58	68	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	45	0.12	56	0.07
Friedman 1930		50	0.60	85	0.00	70	0.03	88	0.03	50	0.07	63	0.05
Garcia 2007		15	0.70	65	0.00	43	0.05	35	0.13	33	0.23	38	0.17
Garcia 2007b		41	0.62	66	0.00	41	0.06	31	0.16	36	0.20	33	0.18
Gierzod 1998		58	0.57	39	0.00	38	0.05	24	0.19	42	0.15	37	0.17
Gornostaeva 1994		73	0.48	53	0.00	69	0.03	77	0.03	38	0.10	64	0.05
Groot 1988		54	0.58	27	0.01	49	0.04	71	0.04	54	0.06	65	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		46	0.60	40	0.00	42	0.06	33	0.13	53	0.05	51	0.08
Hatto 1993		34	0.64	36	0.00	60	0.05	51	0.05	51	0.06	66	0.05
Hatto 1997		30	0.65	73	0.00	62	0.04	69	0.04	46	0.08	60	0.06
Horowitz 1949		81	0.43	86	0.00	85	0.05	55	0.05	73	0.04	71	0.04
Indjic 1988		31	0.65	51	0.00	63	0.06	49	0.06	53	0.06	59	0.06
Kapell 1951		28	0.65	44	0.00	7	0.08	4	0.42	18	0.25	10	0.32
Kissin 1993		45	0.60	24	0.01	34	0.04	23	0.20	36	0.19	32	0.19
Kushner 1989		39	0.62	61	0.00	55	0.04	68	0.04	45	0.11	52	0.07
Luisada 1991		18	0.69	25	0.01	37	0.06	34	0.13	44	0.10	45	0.11
Lushtak 2004		7	0.73	87	0.00	25	0.05	18	0.22	25	0.24	26	0.23
Malcuzynski 1961		82	0.38	11	0.02	20	0.04	37	0.12	28	0.23	34	0.17
Magaloff 1978		27	0.66	45	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	18	0.36	43	0.12
Magin 1975		57	0.57	7	0.04	19	0.04	42	0.09	42	0.10	50	0.09
Michalowski 1933		71	0.49	43	0.00	67	0.03	85	0.03	40	0.15	53	0.07
Milkina 1970		29	0.65	5	0.05	10	0.07	22	0.20	27	0.31	24	0.25
Mohovich 1999		23	0.68	12	0.02	29	0.05	12	0.28	19	0.46	9	0.36
Moravec 1969		12	0.71	3	0.07	4	0.12	3	0.42	3	0.63	2	0.51
Morozova 2008		38	0.63	18	0.01	64	0.05	53	0.05	72	0.03	76	0.04
Neighaus 1950		67	0.51	71	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	70	0.04	80	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		51	0.59	46	0.00	17	0.05	26	0.19	29	0.36	22	0.26
Ohlsson 1999		69	0.50	72	0.00	78	0.04	57	0.04	74	0.04	72	0.04
Osinska 1989		32	0.65	49	0.00	35	0.05	17	0.24	31	0.25	25	0.24
Pachmann 1927		75	0.46	89	0.00	82	0.03	87	0.03	53	0.04	84	0.03
Paderewski 1930		17	0.69	33	0.00	23	0.05	13	0.28	5	0.50	8	0.37
Perlemuter 1992		14	0.70	35	0.00	30	0.05	25	0.19	33	0.21	29	0.20
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.38	29	0.00	80	0.04	75	0.04	59	0.05	69	0.04
Poblocka 1999		78	0.44	26	0.01	39	0.05	21	0.21	33	0.23	28	0.22
Rabcewiczowa 1932		3	0.77	4	0.06	3	0.19	5	0.41	6	0.48	4	0.44
Rachmaninoff 1923		24	0.67	30	0.00	22	0.05	45	0.08	37	0.13	47	0.10
Rangell 2001		87	0.29	88	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	46	0.05	79	0.04
Richter 1976		88	0.22	76	0.00	88	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.03	83	0.03
Rosen 1989		36	0.63	38	0.00	36	0.05	14	0.27	22	0.32	17	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.46	23	0.01	61	0.04	64	0.04	26	0.23	49	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		68	0.50	52	0.00	57	0.04	59	0.04	13	0.46	41	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		65	0.52	32	0.00	58	0.06	47	0.06	13	0.50	39	0.17
Rosenthal 1931c		63	0.52	21	0.01	33	0.05	39	0.11	12	0.47	27	0.23
Rosenthal 1931d		66	0.51	77	0.00	59	0.08	46	0.08	12	0.49	31	0.20
Rossi 2007		11	0.71	17	0.01	13	0.06	16	0.24	1	0.61	6	0.38
Rubinstein 1939		13	0.70	74	0.00	28	0.06	27	0.18	20	0.34	23	0.25
Rubinstein 1952		26	0.67	6	0.05	5	0.15	7	0.36	24	0.41	7	0.38
Rubinstein 1966		21	0.68	50	0.00	31	0.05	43	0.09	27	0.33	36	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		70	0.50	41	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	60	0.05	75	0.04
Shebanova 2002		53	0.58	28	0.01	44	0.05	38	0.12	66	0.04	55	0.07
Smith 1975		43	0.61	22	0.01	40	0.05	36	0.13	20	0.30	30	0.20
Sokolov 2002		62	0.52	54	0.00	71	0.03	83	0.03	65	0.03	81	0.03
Sztompka 1959		44	0.61	37	0.00	15	0.05	19	0.21	59	0.05	48	0.10
Tomsic 1995		79	0.43	78	0.00	77	0.04	67	0.04	32	0.32	46	0.11
Uninsky 1932		59	0.56	62	0.00	66	0.04	63	0.04	60	0.05	77	0.04
Uninsky 1971		80	0.43	56	0.00	76	0.05	56	0.05	66	0.04	73	0.04
Wasowski 1980		37	0.63	10	0.02	50	0.04	60	0.04	43	0.09	58	0.06
Zak 1937		22	0.68	58	0.00	52	0.04	72	0.04	46	0.06	62	0.05
Zak 1951		25	0.67	64	0.00	53	0.05	52	0.05	64	0.04	70	0.04
Average		1	0.78	2	0.12	2	0.19	2	0.57	38	0.17	14	0.31
Random 1		91	-0.28	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.04	82	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	69	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.19	91	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	44	0.09	88	0.03

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).