Magaloff 1978

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