Gornostaeva 1994

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		33	0.63	19	0.01	20	0.06	33	0.19	49	0.05	36	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		3	0.76	4	0.06	4	0.16	2	0.61	6	0.45	2	0.52
Ashkenazy 1981		60	0.55	58	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	52	0.05	62	0.05
Bacha 2000		55	0.58	61	0.00	39	0.07	35	0.15	30	0.15	26	0.15
Badura 1965		64	0.53	63	0.00	70	0.03	73	0.03	53	0.06	79	0.04
Barbosa 1983		82	0.42	85	0.00	65	0.03	68	0.03	54	0.05	76	0.04
Biret 1990		43	0.60	50	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.09	57	0.05	47	0.07
Blet 2003		58	0.56	37	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	59	0.05	77	0.04
Block 1995		48	0.59	46	0.00	32	0.04	36	0.13	29	0.18	27	0.15
Blumental 1952		78	0.48	45	0.00	28	0.04	38	0.10	77	0.03	61	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.72	9	0.04	16	0.09	15	0.33	36	0.22	18	0.27
Brailowsky 1960		17	0.68	48	0.00	38	0.09	32	0.20	27	0.27	22	0.23
Bunin 1987		85	0.39	68	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	45	0.11	53	0.06
Bunin 1987b		86	0.37	73	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	45	0.11	56	0.05
Chiu 1999		79	0.46	90	0.00	53	0.05	59	0.05	64	0.03	67	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.29	62	0.00	88	0.04	65	0.04	46	0.07	63	0.05
Cortot 1951		54	0.58	64	0.00	66	0.03	72	0.03	61	0.04	90	0.03
Csalog 1996		84	0.41	69	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	48	0.05	84	0.03
Czerny 1949		31	0.64	60	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	55	0.05	51	0.06
Czerny 1990		26	0.66	35	0.00	24	0.04	26	0.21	52	0.04	41	0.09
Duchoud 2007		69	0.51	15	0.01	40	0.04	45	0.08	54	0.05	52	0.06
Ezaki 2006		30	0.64	59	0.00	47	0.04	60	0.04	50	0.04	66	0.04
Falvay 1989		57	0.57	11	0.02	73	0.03	75	0.03	38	0.30	40	0.09
Farrell 1958		59	0.56	86	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	50	0.07	54	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		47	0.60	47	0.00	63	0.06	47	0.06	64	0.04	58	0.05
Fliere 1977		15	0.69	10	0.03	10	0.11	12	0.35	46	0.06	29	0.14
Fou 1978		41	0.61	53	0.00	18	0.07	22	0.24	64	0.04	35	0.10
Francois 1956		28	0.66	40	0.00	41	0.04	42	0.09	31	0.24	28	0.15
Friedman 1923		53	0.58	91	0.00	61	0.04	66	0.04	48	0.07	65	0.05
Friedman 1923b		56	0.57	39	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	53	0.05	64	0.05
Friedman 1930		25	0.66	44	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.10	38	0.29	25	0.17
Garcia 2007		40	0.61	57	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	58	0.05	60	0.05
Garcia 2007b		29	0.64	25	0.01	27	0.05	18	0.29	50	0.05	31	0.12
Gierzod 1998		7	0.73	5	0.05	7	0.13	3	0.57	37	0.20	10	0.34
Gornostaeva 1994		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Groot 1988		67	0.52	41	0.00	22	0.05	41	0.10	45	0.10	37	0.10
Harasiewicz 1955		36	0.63	89	0.00	30	0.04	30	0.20	61	0.05	39	0.10
Hatto 1993		80	0.46	87	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	64	0.05	80	0.04
Hatto 1997		77	0.48	80	0.00	72	0.04	62	0.04	66	0.04	78	0.04
Horowitz 1949		65	0.53	67	0.00	80	0.02	82	0.02	54	0.07	73	0.04
Indjic 1988		75	0.48	81	0.00	69	0.03	70	0.03	64	0.05	75	0.04
Kapell 1951		45	0.60	38	0.00	42	0.05	39	0.10	72	0.04	49	0.06
Kissin 1993		38	0.62	74	0.00	45	0.04	43	0.09	75	0.03	57	0.05
Kushner 1989		16	0.69	31	0.00	36	0.07	24	0.23	52	0.05	33	0.11
Luisada 1991		35	0.63	8	0.04	9	0.10	10	0.40	40	0.13	21	0.23
Lushtak 2004		74	0.49	70	0.00	76	0.03	74	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.69	28	0.01	14	0.11	16	0.32	13	0.39	8	0.35
Magaloff 1978		23	0.67	6	0.05	19	0.07	23	0.23	10	0.42	13	0.31
Magin 1975		11	0.71	12	0.02	5	0.13	4	0.53	21	0.39	3	0.45
Michalowski 1933		13	0.69	43	0.00	31	0.05	27	0.20	33	0.20	23	0.20
Milkina 1970		6	0.74	36	0.00	6	0.17	14	0.33	21	0.38	7	0.35
Mohovich 1999		19	0.67	55	0.00	17	0.08	17	0.31	45	0.12	24	0.19
Moravec 1969		70	0.51	34	0.00	68	0.03	71	0.03	39	0.15	42	0.07
Morozova 2008		68	0.51	30	0.01	67	0.03	67	0.03	70	0.03	87	0.03
Neighaus 1950		12	0.70	51	0.00	35	0.05	34	0.16	50	0.06	38	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		37	0.62	32	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	54	0.04	70	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.66	23	0.01	34	0.04	28	0.20	48	0.06	34	0.11
Osinska 1989		5	0.75	26	0.01	11	0.12	9	0.44	39	0.16	17	0.27
Pachmann 1927		34	0.63	33	0.00	74	0.03	69	0.03	32	0.17	45	0.07
Paderewski 1930		44	0.60	71	0.00	58	0.05	52	0.05	42	0.09	44	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		46	0.60	16	0.01	21	0.06	37	0.11	49	0.05	43	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.43	82	0.00	87	0.02	83	0.02	62	0.05	82	0.03
Poblocka 1999		50	0.58	78	0.00	60	0.06	50	0.06	49	0.06	48	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		52	0.58	14	0.01	59	0.05	51	0.05	58	0.04	71	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		39	0.62	66	0.00	46	0.05	57	0.05	60	0.04	68	0.04
Rangell 2001		49	0.58	75	0.00	29	0.04	29	0.20	15	0.39	16	0.28
Richter 1976		83	0.42	79	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	57	0.06	83	0.03
Rosen 1989		4	0.75	1	0.18	1	0.18	8	0.45	14	0.43	4	0.44
Rosenthal 1930		24	0.66	18	0.01	33	0.04	25	0.22	10	0.39	15	0.29
Rosenthal 1931		20	0.67	21	0.01	23	0.04	19	0.29	10	0.51	6	0.38
Rosenthal 1931b		22	0.67	77	0.00	25	0.04	20	0.28	9	0.54	5	0.39
Rosenthal 1931c		32	0.63	24	0.01	37	0.07	31	0.20	8	0.51	12	0.32
Rosenthal 1931d		18	0.67	52	0.00	26	0.05	21	0.26	13	0.48	9	0.35
Rossi 2007		62	0.54	20	0.01	57	0.05	54	0.05	29	0.24	32	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		76	0.48	42	0.00	64	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.04	69	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.34	65	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	50	0.07	81	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		73	0.49	76	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.04	85	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		72	0.49	49	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	69	0.04	86	0.03
Shebanova 2002		9	0.72	13	0.01	12	0.12	6	0.49	61	0.04	30	0.14
Smith 1975		1	0.79	3	0.10	2	0.20	5	0.53	2	0.57	1	0.55
Sokolov 2002		42	0.60	17	0.01	13	0.10	13	0.35	21	0.31	11	0.33
Sztompka 1959		8	0.73	7	0.04	8	0.14	7	0.45	42	0.14	19	0.25
Tomsic 1995		63	0.54	54	0.00	79	0.02	88	0.02	41	0.16	50	0.06
Uninsky 1932		51	0.58	27	0.01	56	0.05	58	0.05	62	0.05	59	0.05
Uninsky 1971		71	0.50	72	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	54	0.06	74	0.04
Wasowski 1980		21	0.67	22	0.01	15	0.11	11	0.35	33	0.16	20	0.24
Zak 1937		61	0.55	56	0.00	49	0.06	48	0.06	70	0.04	55	0.05
Zak 1951		66	0.52	29	0.01	48	0.04	61	0.04	66	0.04	72	0.04
Average		2	0.78	2	0.16	3	0.28	1	0.66	45	0.13	14	0.29
Random 1		90	-0.22	88	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	42	0.11	89	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.30	83	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.06	84	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	31	0.25	46	0.07

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).