Friedman 1923b

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		9	0.79	21	0.00	13	0.14	11	0.54	33	0.28	17	0.39
Anderszewski 2003		17	0.74	61	0.00	21	0.08	38	0.33	23	0.26	27	0.29
Ashkenazy 1981		22	0.72	7	0.00	18	0.09	26	0.43	24	0.29	18	0.35
Bacha 2000		42	0.63	46	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	63	0.04	52	0.05
Badura 1965		20	0.73	47	0.00	40	0.09	29	0.40	23	0.45	13	0.42
Barbosa 1983		53	0.59	62	0.00	66	0.05	62	0.05	40	0.11	49	0.07
Biret 1990		60	0.57	32	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	80	0.03	83	0.03
Blet 2003		55	0.59	9	0.00	53	0.05	61	0.05	53	0.06	55	0.05
Block 1995		62	0.57	63	0.00	52	0.05	57	0.05	47	0.06	58	0.05
Blumental 1952		58	0.58	48	0.00	44	0.05	45	0.12	73	0.04	50	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		32	0.68	64	0.00	31	0.10	21	0.46	25	0.38	14	0.42
Brailowsky 1960		40	0.64	33	0.00	55	0.04	73	0.04	44	0.12	48	0.07
Bunin 1987		74	0.45	49	0.00	51	0.07	47	0.07	33	0.25	41	0.13
Bunin 1987b		75	0.43	65	0.00	50	0.07	49	0.07	34	0.24	36	0.13
Chiu 1999		27	0.71	50	0.00	41	0.08	41	0.24	30	0.23	32	0.23
Cohen 1997		78	0.35	66	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.02	90	0.02
Cortot 1951		39	0.64	67	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	38	0.14	47	0.09
Csalog 1996		88	0.22	34	0.00	79	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03
Czerny 1949		10	0.79	22	0.00	6	0.16	6	0.63	10	0.53	6	0.58
Czerny 1990		16	0.74	68	0.00	20	0.08	23	0.44	34	0.16	29	0.27
Duchoud 2007		73	0.45	23	0.00	72	0.06	51	0.06	64	0.04	57	0.05
Ezaki 2006		7	0.80	35	0.00	15	0.08	24	0.43	16	0.39	15	0.41
Falvay 1989		84	0.29	11	0.00	88	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Farrell 1958		38	0.64	51	0.00	59	0.03	79	0.03	67	0.04	74	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		46	0.61	69	0.00	45	0.07	44	0.15	34	0.12	38	0.13
Fliere 1977		11	0.78	10	0.00	14	0.08	20	0.47	35	0.20	23	0.31
Fou 1978		59	0.57	70	0.00	67	0.05	60	0.05	88	0.02	75	0.03
Francois 1956		66	0.52	71	0.00	69	0.05	64	0.05	61	0.04	72	0.04
Friedman 1923		1	1.00	1	0.99	1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Friedman 1923b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1930		2	0.95	2	0.00	2	0.75	2	0.83	2	0.87	2	0.85
Garcia 2007		45	0.62	52	0.00	56	0.04	74	0.04	68	0.04	68	0.04
Garcia 2007b		43	0.63	72	0.00	43	0.14	39	0.31	67	0.04	46	0.11
Gierzod 1998		28	0.71	12	0.00	19	0.12	18	0.48	36	0.20	24	0.31
Gornostaeva 1994		61	0.57	36	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05	59	0.05
Groot 1988		69	0.51	53	0.00	71	0.08	46	0.08	75	0.04	51	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.77	37	0.00	22	0.08	12	0.54	31	0.22	20	0.34
Hatto 1993		5	0.86	15	0.00	4	0.26	5	0.69	3	0.65	5	0.67
Hatto 1997		4	0.87	73	0.00	5	0.32	4	0.69	3	0.65	4	0.67
Horowitz 1949		31	0.68	74	0.00	25	0.09	14	0.52	20	0.46	11	0.49
Indjic 1988		3	0.87	38	0.00	3	0.29	3	0.70	3	0.65	3	0.67
Kapell 1951		64	0.55	16	0.00	39	0.07	36	0.33	60	0.04	45	0.11
Kissin 1993		35	0.65	54	0.00	34	0.08	27	0.42	57	0.04	37	0.13
Kushner 1989		47	0.61	55	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	82	0.03	76	0.03
Luisada 1991		8	0.80	24	0.00	11	0.13	19	0.47	14	0.35	16	0.41
Lushtak 2004		36	0.65	75	0.00	62	0.04	72	0.04	86	0.03	81	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		68	0.51	17	0.00	23	0.06	42	0.23	23	0.25	31	0.24
Magaloff 1978		65	0.55	76	0.00	68	0.05	66	0.05	62	0.05	54	0.05
Magin 1975		37	0.65	18	0.00	32	0.10	33	0.36	61	0.04	42	0.12
Michalowski 1933		52	0.60	77	0.00	26	0.07	32	0.37	30	0.27	22	0.32
Milkina 1970		50	0.60	25	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	77	0.03	66	0.04
Mohovich 1999		49	0.60	19	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	85	0.03	70	0.04
Moravec 1969		76	0.38	4	0.00	78	0.03	87	0.03	65	0.04	73	0.03
Morozova 2008		18	0.74	39	0.00	29	0.07	31	0.37	32	0.23	28	0.29
Neighaus 1950		13	0.77	40	0.00	9	0.16	8	0.57	15	0.46	9	0.51
Niedzielski 1931		14	0.75	3	0.00	10	0.14	17	0.50	8	0.51	10	0.50
Ohlsson 1999		33	0.67	78	0.00	38	0.08	40	0.28	58	0.05	43	0.12
Osinska 1989		29	0.70	79	0.00	37	0.07	30	0.38	50	0.06	33	0.15
Pachmann 1927		70	0.50	80	0.00	76	0.03	86	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Paderewski 1930		67	0.52	81	0.00	70	0.06	52	0.06	58	0.03	67	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		51	0.60	20	0.00	58	0.05	55	0.05	53	0.04	60	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		79	0.34	41	0.00	77	0.04	71	0.04	79	0.04	63	0.04
Poblocka 1999		57	0.58	82	0.00	42	0.10	37	0.33	66	0.04	44	0.11
Rabcewiczowa 1932		71	0.48	56	0.00	73	0.05	63	0.05	84	0.03	65	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		24	0.71	14	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.35	32	0.19	30	0.26
Rangell 2001		87	0.23	83	0.00	81	0.04	77	0.04	89	0.02	82	0.03
Richter 1976		54	0.59	6	0.00	33	0.08	43	0.19	24	0.45	26	0.29
Rosen 1989		34	0.65	42	0.00	35	0.07	35	0.35	52	0.05	40	0.13
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.37	57	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.31	26	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	63	0.04	77	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.30	27	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	77	0.04	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		85	0.28	28	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	61	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.30	84	0.00	85	0.04	76	0.04	78	0.03	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		63	0.56	43	0.00	74	0.05	58	0.05	58	0.05	53	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		56	0.59	44	0.00	60	0.04	75	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		86	0.27	58	0.00	80	0.04	70	0.04	76	0.04	71	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		44	0.62	8	0.00	61	0.05	67	0.05	55	0.05	56	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		25	0.71	5	0.00	24	0.08	13	0.52	26	0.44	12	0.48
Shebanova 2002		30	0.69	85	0.00	27	0.07	22	0.45	72	0.04	39	0.13
Smith 1975		48	0.60	29	0.00	54	0.05	65	0.05	68	0.04	62	0.04
Sokolov 2002		72	0.47	59	0.00	65	0.05	54	0.05	77	0.03	61	0.04
Sztompka 1959		21	0.72	30	0.00	30	0.07	28	0.41	67	0.05	35	0.14
Tomsic 1995		83	0.29	86	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.02	88	0.02
Uninsky 1932		23	0.71	87	0.00	8	0.15	9	0.56	12	0.48	8	0.52
Uninsky 1971		41	0.63	45	0.00	7	0.13	7	0.59	7	0.47	7	0.53
Wasowski 1980		26	0.71	31	0.00	28	0.07	25	0.43	28	0.19	25	0.29
Zak 1937		15	0.74	88	0.00	17	0.17	16	0.51	27	0.22	21	0.33
Zak 1951		19	0.73	89	0.00	16	0.11	15	0.51	27	0.23	19	0.34
Average		6	0.81	13	0.00	12	0.16	10	0.55	67	0.04	34	0.15
Random 1		90	-0.25	60	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	37	0.14	69	0.04
Random 2		89	-0.08	90	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	46	0.04	79	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.26	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	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).