Czerny 1949

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		3	0.84	3	0.10	3	0.31	3	0.61	5	0.53	6	0.57
Anderszewski 2003		28	0.72	11	0.01	43	0.09	42	0.19	47	0.07	46	0.12
Ashkenazy 1981		45	0.64	59	0.00	30	0.07	31	0.38	20	0.33	35	0.35
Bacha 2000		69	0.53	85	0.00	66	0.04	70	0.04	75	0.03	78	0.03
Badura 1965		27	0.72	65	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.34	17	0.51	28	0.42
Barbosa 1983		81	0.42	48	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.05	71	0.04
Biret 1990		64	0.55	56	0.00	64	0.05	53	0.05	71	0.04	74	0.04
Blet 2003		49	0.63	49	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	54	0.06	62	0.05
Block 1995		65	0.55	79	0.00	49	0.04	71	0.04	34	0.14	53	0.07
Blumental 1952		70	0.52	17	0.01	42	0.07	44	0.15	41	0.10	47	0.12
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.76	29	0.00	23	0.10	25	0.44	20	0.47	25	0.45
Brailowsky 1960		68	0.53	13	0.01	74	0.03	81	0.03	52	0.04	79	0.03
Bunin 1987		46	0.64	36	0.00	38	0.10	37	0.31	5	0.54	30	0.41
Bunin 1987b		51	0.62	44	0.00	37	0.08	38	0.31	5	0.54	29	0.41
Chiu 1999		71	0.50	66	0.00	67	0.04	65	0.04	77	0.03	81	0.03
Cohen 1997		88	0.22	63	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	65	0.04	87	0.03
Cortot 1951		31	0.71	23	0.00	41	0.08	41	0.24	18	0.42	37	0.32
Csalog 1996		84	0.34	86	0.00	80	0.02	88	0.02	52	0.04	84	0.03
Czerny 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1990		11	0.79	4	0.08	9	0.12	8	0.55	6	0.51	11	0.53
Duchoud 2007		67	0.54	80	0.00	56	0.04	62	0.04	31	0.21	49	0.09
Ezaki 2006		26	0.72	52	0.00	35	0.06	30	0.39	23	0.35	34	0.37
Falvay 1989		86	0.29	69	0.00	88	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.02	90	0.02
Farrell 1958		63	0.55	24	0.00	60	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.05	70	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.60	60	0.00	59	0.06	52	0.06	68	0.04	63	0.05
Fliere 1977		4	0.83	21	0.00	7	0.13	5	0.57	15	0.41	17	0.48
Fou 1978		57	0.58	76	0.00	55	0.06	51	0.06	75	0.04	59	0.05
Francois 1956		48	0.64	67	0.00	57	0.04	68	0.04	35	0.16	51	0.08
Friedman 1923		10	0.79	19	0.00	15	0.11	12	0.53	6	0.63	4	0.58
Friedman 1923b		12	0.79	40	0.00	13	0.11	10	0.53	6	0.63	3	0.58
Friedman 1930		9	0.79	46	0.00	19	0.12	18	0.49	6	0.61	8	0.55
Garcia 2007		33	0.70	27	0.00	36	0.07	40	0.28	21	0.37	36	0.32
Garcia 2007b		40	0.67	70	0.00	31	0.08	33	0.34	12	0.50	31	0.41
Gierzod 1998		2	0.85	2	0.17	2	0.21	4	0.59	7	0.58	2	0.58
Gornostaeva 1994		47	0.64	37	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	46	0.07	56	0.06
Groot 1988		73	0.49	61	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	52	0.06	65	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		14	0.78	18	0.00	14	0.11	16	0.51	10	0.45	20	0.48
Hatto 1993		25	0.72	12	0.01	26	0.13	24	0.46	9	0.53	16	0.49
Hatto 1997		23	0.74	25	0.00	25	0.13	23	0.46	10	0.49	23	0.47
Horowitz 1949		24	0.73	50	0.00	27	0.08	26	0.44	11	0.51	21	0.47
Indjic 1988		21	0.75	35	0.00	24	0.12	22	0.46	9	0.51	19	0.48
Kapell 1951		41	0.66	71	0.00	28	0.06	32	0.37	36	0.13	41	0.22
Kissin 1993		22	0.74	20	0.00	18	0.12	15	0.51	12	0.48	14	0.49
Kushner 1989		36	0.69	43	0.00	54	0.06	49	0.06	57	0.05	60	0.05
Luisada 1991		42	0.65	72	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	63	0.05	54	0.06
Lushtak 2004		53	0.61	53	0.00	58	0.04	72	0.04	76	0.03	86	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		39	0.67	7	0.05	22	0.10	36	0.31	2	0.59	27	0.43
Magaloff 1978		62	0.56	54	0.00	71	0.05	57	0.05	55	0.06	57	0.05
Magin 1975		37	0.68	39	0.00	21	0.11	21	0.47	20	0.40	26	0.43
Michalowski 1933		32	0.71	41	0.00	20	0.10	19	0.48	9	0.53	13	0.50
Milkina 1970		44	0.65	22	0.00	53	0.05	54	0.05	46	0.07	55	0.06
Mohovich 1999		58	0.57	82	0.00	63	0.04	66	0.04	66	0.05	73	0.04
Moravec 1969		72	0.49	15	0.01	73	0.04	75	0.04	58	0.05	66	0.04
Morozova 2008		50	0.63	33	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	30	0.24	43	0.17
Neighaus 1950		7	0.81	10	0.01	8	0.15	9	0.54	11	0.50	12	0.52
Niedzielski 1931		6	0.81	16	0.01	11	0.13	17	0.51	2	0.64	5	0.57
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.71	81	0.00	29	0.06	29	0.39	19	0.38	33	0.38
Osinska 1989		20	0.75	30	0.00	40	0.10	39	0.28	32	0.25	40	0.26
Pachmann 1927		52	0.61	68	0.00	69	0.05	56	0.05	38	0.13	50	0.08
Paderewski 1930		60	0.56	73	0.00	65	0.06	50	0.06	49	0.04	61	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		43	0.65	28	0.00	52	0.04	73	0.04	44	0.12	52	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		82	0.36	74	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	55	0.06	67	0.04
Poblocka 1999		18	0.76	77	0.00	16	0.12	20	0.47	12	0.49	18	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.54	31	0.00	68	0.04	60	0.04	74	0.04	69	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		13	0.78	8	0.03	12	0.11	11	0.53	3	0.58	7	0.55
Rangell 2001		85	0.33	55	0.00	83	0.03	77	0.03	58	0.04	88	0.03
Richter 1976		35	0.69	87	0.00	39	0.08	35	0.32	14	0.51	32	0.40
Rosen 1989		55	0.60	83	0.00	51	0.04	64	0.04	60	0.04	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		56	0.59	9	0.03	48	0.05	58	0.05	16	0.32	44	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.45	88	0.00	81	0.02	87	0.02	62	0.04	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.45	89	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	74	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		76	0.47	62	0.00	72	0.04	61	0.04	66	0.04	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.45	90	0.00	84	0.04	67	0.04	70	0.04	75	0.04
Rossi 2007		80	0.44	34	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	74	0.04	80	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		74	0.48	32	0.00	75	0.02	85	0.02	47	0.07	68	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.25	58	0.00	85	0.04	74	0.04	82	0.04	77	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		75	0.47	51	0.00	77	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.04	85	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		1	0.86	1	0.26	1	0.25	2	0.66	2	0.65	1	0.65
Shebanova 2002		15	0.77	47	0.00	17	0.16	14	0.52	13	0.41	24	0.46
Smith 1975		59	0.57	64	0.00	70	0.07	47	0.07	74	0.03	58	0.05
Sokolov 2002		61	0.56	84	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	33	0.19	45	0.12
Sztompka 1959		8	0.80	26	0.00	10	0.12	13	0.52	13	0.43	22	0.47
Tomsic 1995		83	0.34	78	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03
Uninsky 1932		16	0.77	5	0.06	5	0.17	6	0.55	4	0.55	9	0.55
Uninsky 1971		17	0.77	14	0.01	4	0.16	7	0.55	3	0.52	10	0.53
Wasowski 1980		38	0.67	42	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.18	24	0.21	42	0.19
Zak 1937		29	0.71	57	0.00	33	0.12	27	0.43	31	0.20	39	0.29
Zak 1951		34	0.69	38	0.00	32	0.10	28	0.42	29	0.21	38	0.30
Average		5	0.83	6	0.06	6	0.15	1	0.68	20	0.35	15	0.49
Random 1		89	-0.06	75	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	8	0.48	48	0.10
Random 2		90	-0.14	45	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	36	0.13	64	0.05
Random 3		91	-0.20	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	74	0.02	91	0.01

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).