Moravec 1969

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		35	0.52	72	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	83	0.03	47	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		56	0.43	48	0.00	65	0.05	59	0.05	78	0.03	57	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		69	0.39	39	0.00	66	0.04	64	0.04	88	0.02	81	0.03
Bacha 2000		27	0.55	40	0.00	18	0.09	13	0.49	58	0.04	21	0.14
Badura 1965		84	0.30	8	0.03	77	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03
Barbosa 1983		61	0.42	69	0.00	32	0.08	36	0.19	66	0.04	34	0.09
Biret 1990		14	0.60	36	0.00	15	0.11	18	0.46	55	0.05	20	0.15
Blet 2003		44	0.49	46	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	72	0.04	58	0.04
Block 1995		81	0.31	87	0.00	79	0.02	85	0.02	83	0.03	88	0.02
Blumental 1952		2	0.71	1	0.20	1	0.20	3	0.63	3	0.42	7	0.51
Boshniakovich 1969		82	0.31	73	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	84	0.03	89	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		32	0.53	32	0.00	30	0.07	27	0.34	58	0.04	26	0.12
Bunin 1987		86	0.20	27	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	78	0.03	90	0.02
Bunin 1987b		87	0.18	22	0.01	87	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03	71	0.03
Chiu 1999		46	0.48	50	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.25	74	0.03	33	0.09
Cohen 1997		68	0.40	37	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	14	0.35	17	0.21
Cortot 1951		21	0.58	58	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.28	44	0.09	19	0.16
Csalog 1996		16	0.60	15	0.01	16	0.13	14	0.48	12	0.39	11	0.43
Czerny 1949		43	0.49	20	0.01	51	0.05	58	0.05	75	0.04	61	0.04
Czerny 1990		1	0.71	4	0.08	2	0.18	2	0.66	20	0.31	10	0.45
Duchoud 2007		75	0.34	57	0.00	75	0.04	76	0.04	77	0.03	79	0.03
Ezaki 2006		17	0.60	12	0.02	11	0.15	10	0.53	42	0.12	15	0.25
Falvay 1989		9	0.64	14	0.01	12	0.10	16	0.47	11	0.52	9	0.49
Farrell 1958		30	0.54	74	0.00	22	0.11	23	0.40	63	0.05	23	0.14
Ferenczy 1958		42	0.50	55	0.00	41	0.05	45	0.12	54	0.05	38	0.08
Fliere 1977		50	0.44	29	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.03	65	0.03
Fou 1978		34	0.52	42	0.00	44	0.05	41	0.14	87	0.03	44	0.06
Francois 1956		23	0.56	77	0.00	24	0.13	24	0.40	67	0.04	25	0.13
Friedman 1923		70	0.39	64	0.00	74	0.06	48	0.06	71	0.04	51	0.05
Friedman 1923b		72	0.38	65	0.00	72	0.04	65	0.04	87	0.03	82	0.03
Friedman 1930		59	0.42	45	0.00	73	0.05	57	0.05	60	0.05	46	0.05
Garcia 2007		25	0.55	33	0.00	45	0.08	38	0.15	66	0.04	39	0.08
Garcia 2007b		41	0.50	24	0.00	42	0.05	44	0.13	70	0.04	43	0.07
Gierzod 1998		45	0.48	59	0.00	53	0.07	46	0.07	75	0.03	48	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		39	0.51	51	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.15	71	0.03	42	0.07
Groot 1988		60	0.42	43	0.00	56	0.05	51	0.05	84	0.03	63	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		53	0.44	60	0.00	58	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1993		83	0.30	91	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.03	84	0.03
Hatto 1997		77	0.32	88	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.03	87	0.02
Horowitz 1949		76	0.33	61	0.00	85	0.04	73	0.04	84	0.03	72	0.03
Indjic 1988		78	0.32	78	0.00	84	0.04	75	0.04	86	0.03	76	0.03
Kapell 1951		19	0.58	13	0.02	17	0.10	21	0.42	81	0.03	28	0.11
Kissin 1993		31	0.53	47	0.00	39	0.05	40	0.14	87	0.02	45	0.05
Kushner 1989		40	0.51	62	0.00	48	0.04	63	0.04	87	0.02	69	0.03
Luisada 1991		52	0.44	82	0.00	47	0.04	70	0.04	79	0.03	64	0.03
Lushtak 2004		54	0.44	89	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	80	0.03	62	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		37	0.51	11	0.03	25	0.08	28	0.29	39	0.15	16	0.21
Magaloff 1978		18	0.59	17	0.01	21	0.10	17	0.46	44	0.16	14	0.27
Magin 1975		49	0.46	18	0.01	50	0.04	61	0.04	81	0.03	68	0.03
Michalowski 1933		62	0.41	21	0.01	68	0.04	60	0.04	72	0.04	55	0.04
Milkina 1970		13	0.62	52	0.00	19	0.12	15	0.48	76	0.03	27	0.12
Mohovich 1999		28	0.54	53	0.00	27	0.07	25	0.40	86	0.03	29	0.11
Moravec 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Morozova 2008		71	0.38	79	0.00	60	0.03	79	0.03	66	0.04	77	0.03
Neighaus 1950		80	0.32	66	0.00	78	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.03	91	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		7	0.66	5	0.07	9	0.26	1	0.68	27	0.37	8	0.50
Ohlsson 1999		85	0.28	80	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.03
Osinska 1989		20	0.58	31	0.00	28	0.06	26	0.34	87	0.03	31	0.10
Pachmann 1927		64	0.41	49	0.00	76	0.04	71	0.04	84	0.02	73	0.03
Paderewski 1930		38	0.51	84	0.00	36	0.06	32	0.24	70	0.03	37	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		33	0.52	70	0.00	37	0.05	37	0.19	85	0.03	36	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		79	0.32	63	0.00	70	0.05	55	0.05	76	0.04	52	0.04
Poblocka 1999		57	0.43	71	0.00	69	0.04	68	0.04	88	0.02	66	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		3	0.69	26	0.00	8	0.21	11	0.50	16	0.31	12	0.39
Rachmaninoff 1923		15	0.60	16	0.01	14	0.11	12	0.49	58	0.04	22	0.14
Rangell 2001		74	0.35	41	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	74	0.03	83	0.03
Richter 1976		88	0.14	56	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.02
Rosen 1989		36	0.52	67	0.00	40	0.05	34	0.23	87	0.02	41	0.07
Rosenthal 1930		11	0.63	9	0.03	10	0.17	5	0.56	7	0.50	6	0.53
Rosenthal 1931		5	0.67	2	0.15	3	0.25	4	0.56	5	0.59	1	0.57
Rosenthal 1931b		6	0.67	7	0.04	4	0.19	7	0.55	6	0.59	3	0.57
Rosenthal 1931c		8	0.66	10	0.03	7	0.29	9	0.54	6	0.54	5	0.54
Rosenthal 1931d		4	0.67	28	0.00	6	0.17	8	0.55	5	0.59	2	0.57
Rossi 2007		10	0.64	3	0.08	5	0.16	6	0.56	5	0.55	4	0.55
Rubinstein 1939		48	0.47	85	0.00	35	0.08	35	0.20	57	0.05	32	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		26	0.55	54	0.00	13	0.10	22	0.41	33	0.34	13	0.37
Rubinstein 1966		58	0.42	81	0.00	34	0.05	42	0.13	79	0.04	40	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		65	0.41	38	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.04	59	0.04
Shebanova 2002		51	0.44	30	0.00	55	0.06	49	0.06	85	0.03	60	0.04
Smith 1975		24	0.55	25	0.00	23	0.11	20	0.44	54	0.04	24	0.13
Sokolov 2002		73	0.36	44	0.00	63	0.04	72	0.04	63	0.03	67	0.03
Sztompka 1959		47	0.48	75	0.00	49	0.05	56	0.05	88	0.02	74	0.03
Tomsic 1995		67	0.40	68	0.00	64	0.04	66	0.04	73	0.04	54	0.04
Uninsky 1932		22	0.56	6	0.05	26	0.08	29	0.28	45	0.13	18	0.19
Uninsky 1971		66	0.41	34	0.00	71	0.05	52	0.05	79	0.04	56	0.04
Wasowski 1980		29	0.54	35	0.00	33	0.05	33	0.24	77	0.04	30	0.10
Zak 1937		55	0.43	90	0.00	59	0.04	74	0.04	87	0.02	70	0.03
Zak 1951		63	0.41	86	0.00	61	0.05	53	0.05	87	0.03	53	0.04
Average		12	0.62	23	0.01	20	0.11	19	0.44	85	0.02	35	0.09
Random 1		90	-0.14	76	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	25	0.23	49	0.05
Random 2		91	-0.21	19	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	42	0.08	78	0.03
Random 3		89	-0.11	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	33	0.22	50	0.05

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).