Fliere 1977

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	0.87	38	0.00	4	0.14	5	0.49	6	0.52	11	0.50
Anderszewski 2003		15	0.81	6	0.02	27	0.11	26	0.27	4	0.48	27	0.36
Ashkenazy 1981		48	0.71	81	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.28	11	0.46	28	0.36
Bacha 2000		70	0.60	61	0.00	62	0.05	53	0.05	26	0.20	67	0.10
Badura 1965		45	0.73	22	0.00	41	0.04	45	0.13	13	0.53	41	0.26
Barbosa 1983		78	0.53	86	0.00	74	0.04	74	0.04	37	0.12	76	0.07
Biret 1990		57	0.65	16	0.01	59	0.04	64	0.04	32	0.19	69	0.09
Blet 2003		27	0.78	63	0.00	37	0.05	29	0.22	1	0.53	29	0.34
Block 1995		67	0.62	30	0.00	21	0.09	38	0.16	4	0.44	38	0.27
Blumental 1952		68	0.61	48	0.00	57	0.04	68	0.04	66	0.04	86	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		11	0.82	11	0.01	18	0.10	14	0.41	7	0.57	15	0.48
Brailowsky 1960		55	0.69	8	0.02	49	0.05	56	0.05	12	0.43	48	0.15
Bunin 1987		74	0.55	87	0.00	70	0.04	76	0.04	22	0.40	58	0.13
Bunin 1987b		75	0.54	69	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	22	0.40	55	0.13
Chiu 1999		69	0.61	59	0.00	58	0.04	60	0.04	45	0.12	73	0.07
Cohen 1997		88	0.37	88	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	47	0.06	87	0.04
Cortot 1951		41	0.74	67	0.00	46	0.05	54	0.05	11	0.47	50	0.15
Csalog 1996		82	0.47	12	0.01	73	0.03	83	0.03	42	0.12	79	0.06
Czerny 1949		7	0.83	49	0.00	15	0.11	15	0.41	5	0.57	14	0.48
Czerny 1990		23	0.79	46	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.15	24	0.28	45	0.20
Duchoud 2007		71	0.60	32	0.00	56	0.05	51	0.05	7	0.48	49	0.15
Ezaki 2006		32	0.78	15	0.01	43	0.04	44	0.14	20	0.38	44	0.23
Falvay 1989		86	0.44	57	0.00	88	0.04	69	0.04	56	0.06	82	0.05
Farrell 1958		59	0.65	75	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	45	0.12	74	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.69	58	0.00	66	0.05	52	0.05	19	0.34	57	0.13
Fliere 1977		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fou 1978		50	0.70	23	0.00	36	0.04	41	0.15	12	0.45	39	0.26
Francois 1956		63	0.63	70	0.00	75	0.04	59	0.04	40	0.12	77	0.07
Friedman 1923		29	0.78	64	0.00	33	0.05	36	0.19	21	0.45	36	0.29
Friedman 1923b		28	0.78	65	0.00	31	0.06	35	0.20	20	0.47	33	0.31
Friedman 1930		31	0.78	31	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.14	14	0.49	40	0.26
Garcia 2007		30	0.78	71	0.00	30	0.05	28	0.26	6	0.56	25	0.38
Garcia 2007b		39	0.74	50	0.00	32	0.07	27	0.27	8	0.54	26	0.38
Gierzod 1998		2	0.88	10	0.01	2	0.16	2	0.57	5	0.65	2	0.61
Gornostaeva 1994		53	0.69	35	0.00	51	0.06	46	0.06	12	0.35	53	0.14
Groot 1988		66	0.62	29	0.00	61	0.04	57	0.04	17	0.40	59	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		21	0.79	44	0.00	23	0.09	19	0.38	11	0.44	22	0.41
Hatto 1993		19	0.80	5	0.03	9	0.11	10	0.46	6	0.58	8	0.52
Hatto 1997		13	0.81	2	0.05	8	0.11	9	0.46	7	0.56	10	0.51
Horowitz 1949		47	0.72	36	0.00	47	0.05	50	0.05	5	0.54	47	0.16
Indjic 1988		12	0.82	42	0.00	10	0.19	8	0.46	7	0.56	9	0.51
Kapell 1951		34	0.77	13	0.01	16	0.13	12	0.43	3	0.45	18	0.44
Kissin 1993		18	0.80	51	0.00	14	0.10	13	0.42	9	0.51	17	0.46
Kushner 1989		20	0.80	37	0.00	39	0.06	32	0.21	19	0.43	34	0.30
Luisada 1991		10	0.82	17	0.01	11	0.14	11	0.46	3	0.65	3	0.55
Lushtak 2004		42	0.74	43	0.00	42	0.05	37	0.18	13	0.34	43	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		72	0.57	84	0.00	76	0.04	71	0.04	42	0.14	75	0.07
Magaloff 1978		62	0.63	18	0.01	63	0.04	63	0.04	22	0.30	61	0.11
Magin 1975		26	0.78	21	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.35	10	0.50	21	0.42
Michalowski 1933		49	0.71	47	0.00	55	0.05	49	0.05	18	0.42	52	0.14
Milkina 1970		44	0.73	72	0.00	50	0.04	62	0.04	26	0.32	63	0.11
Mohovich 1999		46	0.72	26	0.00	52	0.04	58	0.04	29	0.35	60	0.12
Moravec 1969		84	0.44	19	0.01	87	0.03	81	0.03	62	0.04	88	0.03
Morozova 2008		22	0.79	73	0.00	26	0.12	24	0.31	8	0.50	24	0.39
Neighaus 1950		8	0.83	66	0.00	13	0.14	17	0.41	9	0.55	16	0.47
Niedzielski 1931		33	0.77	89	0.00	45	0.08	40	0.15	13	0.49	37	0.27
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.81	9	0.02	12	0.14	16	0.41	7	0.57	13	0.48
Osinska 1989		9	0.82	14	0.01	20	0.11	18	0.39	6	0.60	12	0.48
Pachmann 1927		52	0.69	56	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	13	0.42	56	0.13
Paderewski 1930		58	0.65	78	0.00	67	0.03	80	0.03	28	0.27	68	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		40	0.74	39	0.00	29	0.05	31	0.21	6	0.48	30	0.32
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.47	91	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	52	0.06	84	0.04
Poblocka 1999		14	0.81	4	0.03	5	0.10	6	0.48	1	0.61	4	0.54
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.65	68	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	44	0.09	78	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		25	0.78	20	0.01	28	0.05	30	0.21	6	0.49	31	0.32
Rangell 2001		87	0.40	41	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	44	0.11	80	0.06
Richter 1976		51	0.70	52	0.00	54	0.05	47	0.05	6	0.60	46	0.17
Rosen 1989		35	0.77	40	0.00	38	0.05	34	0.20	12	0.47	32	0.31
Rosenthal 1930		64	0.63	76	0.00	72	0.04	78	0.04	18	0.30	65	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.54	85	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	29	0.23	70	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.54	62	0.00	84	0.04	77	0.04	34	0.17	72	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.56	77	0.00	79	0.04	75	0.04	21	0.32	66	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.53	82	0.00	85	0.04	65	0.04	36	0.17	71	0.08
Rossi 2007		81	0.48	28	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.04	89	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.65	83	0.00	65	0.05	48	0.05	26	0.25	62	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		85	0.44	45	0.00	78	0.04	79	0.04	47	0.10	81	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		56	0.68	53	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	29	0.31	64	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		4	0.85	27	0.00	6	0.11	7	0.47	3	0.63	5	0.54
Shebanova 2002		6	0.84	3	0.04	3	0.14	3	0.54	7	0.55	6	0.54
Smith 1975		36	0.75	7	0.02	48	0.04	61	0.04	4	0.51	51	0.14
Sokolov 2002		65	0.63	25	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	19	0.33	54	0.13
Sztompka 1959		5	0.84	34	0.00	7	0.15	4	0.53	6	0.53	7	0.53
Tomsic 1995		80	0.49	54	0.00	82	0.02	88	0.02	47	0.08	85	0.04
Uninsky 1932		38	0.74	55	0.00	35	0.04	33	0.20	18	0.44	35	0.30
Uninsky 1971		37	0.74	33	0.00	22	0.08	22	0.36	22	0.42	23	0.39
Wasowski 1980		43	0.73	24	0.00	34	0.05	39	0.15	9	0.43	42	0.25
Zak 1937		17	0.81	79	0.00	17	0.11	20	0.38	6	0.50	19	0.44
Zak 1951		24	0.79	60	0.00	19	0.12	21	0.37	5	0.50	20	0.43
Average		1	0.92	1	0.59	1	0.58	1	0.76	1	0.68	1	0.72
Random 1		90	-0.23	74	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	79	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	-0.11	80	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	34	0.14	83	0.05
Random 3		91	-0.25	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	71	0.03	90	0.02

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).