Niedzielski 1931

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		5	0.76	58	0.00	6	0.13	5	0.54	30	0.29	11	0.40
Anderszewski 2003		32	0.65	40	0.00	39	0.06	43	0.13	55	0.04	54	0.07
Ashkenazy 1981		68	0.52	59	0.00	35	0.06	37	0.22	48	0.06	42	0.11
Bacha 2000		65	0.54	41	0.00	41	0.06	39	0.15	27	0.19	33	0.17
Badura 1965		70	0.52	31	0.00	66	0.03	83	0.03	54	0.06	68	0.04
Barbosa 1983		77	0.47	18	0.01	62	0.04	50	0.04	29	0.19	47	0.09
Biret 1990		63	0.54	38	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	49	0.06	50	0.08
Blet 2003		27	0.66	60	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.09	49	0.07	49	0.08
Block 1995		69	0.52	79	0.00	76	0.04	59	0.04	59	0.04	70	0.04
Blumental 1952		53	0.59	11	0.02	18	0.09	29	0.36	26	0.19	30	0.26
Boshniakovich 1969		40	0.63	19	0.01	51	0.03	74	0.03	60	0.05	72	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		45	0.60	26	0.00	52	0.03	77	0.03	31	0.23	48	0.08
Bunin 1987		79	0.43	36	0.00	81	0.04	66	0.04	53	0.06	59	0.05
Bunin 1987b		81	0.42	66	0.00	80	0.03	70	0.03	53	0.06	64	0.04
Chiu 1999		71	0.52	87	0.00	50	0.03	81	0.03	54	0.04	77	0.03
Cohen 1997		88	0.25	45	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	66	0.04	86	0.03
Cortot 1951		12	0.72	33	0.00	29	0.09	31	0.31	10	0.48	13	0.39
Csalog 1996		78	0.46	64	0.00	74	0.03	71	0.03	53	0.04	82	0.03
Czerny 1949		2	0.81	7	0.05	4	0.22	2	0.64	17	0.51	3	0.57
Czerny 1990		1	0.82	1	0.25	1	0.24	1	0.68	5	0.54	1	0.61
Duchoud 2007		84	0.39	24	0.01	83	0.04	51	0.04	69	0.03	83	0.03
Ezaki 2006		21	0.69	75	0.00	24	0.09	21	0.44	25	0.32	14	0.38
Falvay 1989		85	0.39	74	0.00	87	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.04	78	0.03
Farrell 1958		51	0.59	61	0.00	48	0.03	80	0.03	52	0.06	61	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		25	0.67	76	0.00	34	0.05	34	0.26	16	0.37	23	0.31
Fliere 1977		4	0.77	25	0.01	15	0.11	13	0.49	40	0.15	29	0.27
Fou 1978		76	0.50	80	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03
Francois 1956		30	0.65	14	0.01	38	0.06	36	0.23	20	0.42	26	0.31
Friedman 1923		11	0.74	30	0.00	9	0.10	9	0.50	15	0.50	7	0.50
Friedman 1923b		9	0.75	10	0.02	7	0.16	8	0.51	17	0.50	6	0.50
Friedman 1930		7	0.75	16	0.01	14	0.12	14	0.49	12	0.51	5	0.50
Garcia 2007		24	0.67	13	0.02	21	0.08	26	0.38	27	0.32	18	0.35
Garcia 2007b		38	0.64	28	0.00	26	0.13	28	0.37	22	0.37	16	0.37
Gierzod 1998		10	0.74	3	0.11	5	0.18	6	0.54	15	0.44	8	0.49
Gornostaeva 1994		42	0.62	34	0.00	56	0.04	54	0.04	53	0.05	73	0.04
Groot 1988		74	0.50	35	0.00	75	0.04	64	0.04	62	0.05	74	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		41	0.63	81	0.00	49	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.04	88	0.03
Hatto 1993		39	0.64	12	0.02	30	0.09	20	0.45	34	0.22	25	0.31
Hatto 1997		35	0.65	82	0.00	31	0.15	19	0.46	33	0.23	21	0.33
Horowitz 1949		59	0.56	22	0.01	71	0.03	72	0.03	53	0.07	55	0.05
Indjic 1988		33	0.65	83	0.00	28	0.11	17	0.46	33	0.24	20	0.33
Kapell 1951		22	0.68	32	0.00	16	0.10	12	0.49	37	0.12	31	0.24
Kissin 1993		20	0.70	88	0.00	19	0.09	22	0.43	30	0.24	22	0.32
Kushner 1989		34	0.65	46	0.00	57	0.04	57	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.04
Luisada 1991		26	0.67	15	0.01	27	0.12	24	0.41	66	0.04	35	0.13
Lushtak 2004		54	0.58	84	0.00	61	0.04	61	0.04	68	0.04	69	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.61	17	0.01	20	0.08	38	0.18	18	0.30	32	0.23
Magaloff 1978		56	0.57	23	0.01	53	0.04	65	0.04	31	0.23	46	0.10
Magin 1975		28	0.66	62	0.00	33	0.06	33	0.26	46	0.07	36	0.13
Michalowski 1933		49	0.59	37	0.00	60	0.04	58	0.04	50	0.06	57	0.05
Milkina 1970		48	0.59	90	0.00	63	0.05	49	0.05	86	0.03	63	0.04
Mohovich 1999		57	0.57	77	0.00	55	0.05	46	0.05	58	0.06	58	0.05
Moravec 1969		29	0.66	6	0.06	12	0.10	27	0.37	1	0.68	4	0.50
Morozova 2008		52	0.59	67	0.00	59	0.04	52	0.04	57	0.04	67	0.04
Neighaus 1950		14	0.71	8	0.02	13	0.09	18	0.46	29	0.31	15	0.38
Niedzielski 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ohlsson 1999		55	0.58	20	0.01	54	0.04	53	0.04	76	0.03	81	0.03
Osinska 1989		16	0.71	85	0.00	25	0.10	23	0.43	37	0.20	27	0.29
Pachmann 1927		73	0.51	55	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Paderewski 1930		47	0.60	29	0.00	58	0.04	55	0.04	40	0.13	53	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		50	0.59	39	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	61	0.04	51	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		82	0.40	48	0.00	79	0.04	60	0.04	57	0.05	60	0.04
Poblocka 1999		23	0.68	78	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.25	63	0.05	39	0.11
Rabcewiczowa 1932		46	0.60	53	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.14	57	0.04	52	0.07
Rachmaninoff 1923		18	0.70	9	0.02	10	0.10	7	0.52	13	0.37	10	0.44
Rangell 2001		87	0.29	86	0.00	84	0.03	87	0.03	64	0.03	87	0.03
Richter 1976		75	0.50	43	0.00	82	0.05	48	0.05	51	0.06	56	0.05
Rosen 1989		43	0.62	52	0.00	46	0.05	47	0.05	68	0.04	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		58	0.56	27	0.00	69	0.03	84	0.03	59	0.04	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		61	0.54	56	0.00	47	0.03	79	0.03	15	0.44	41	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		64	0.54	89	0.00	68	0.03	85	0.03	16	0.44	43	0.11
Rosenthal 1931c		60	0.54	63	0.00	70	0.03	69	0.03	16	0.38	44	0.11
Rosenthal 1931d		67	0.53	44	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	20	0.37	38	0.12
Rossi 2007		66	0.53	21	0.01	64	0.03	78	0.03	24	0.31	45	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		62	0.54	54	0.00	65	0.03	73	0.03	62	0.04	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		86	0.38	91	0.00	78	0.04	63	0.04	64	0.05	75	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		72	0.52	72	0.00	77	0.03	68	0.03	58	0.05	66	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		8	0.75	4	0.08	8	0.15	10	0.50	17	0.47	9	0.48
Shebanova 2002		13	0.72	49	0.00	17	0.09	15	0.48	38	0.20	24	0.31
Smith 1975		36	0.64	42	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.15	38	0.14	34	0.14
Sokolov 2002		80	0.43	50	0.00	67	0.04	56	0.04	87	0.02	76	0.03
Sztompka 1959		15	0.71	47	0.00	11	0.10	11	0.50	34	0.23	19	0.34
Tomsic 1995		83	0.40	65	0.00	88	0.04	62	0.04	65	0.05	65	0.04
Uninsky 1932		6	0.76	2	0.12	2	0.15	3	0.61	2	0.56	2	0.58
Uninsky 1971		17	0.70	68	0.00	23	0.09	25	0.40	36	0.32	17	0.36
Wasowski 1980		19	0.70	57	0.00	22	0.09	16	0.48	16	0.32	12	0.39
Zak 1937		31	0.65	51	0.00	32	0.05	30	0.31	63	0.04	40	0.11
Zak 1951		37	0.64	69	0.00	36	0.06	32	0.28	49	0.06	37	0.13
Average		3	0.79	5	0.06	3	0.18	4	0.60	41	0.14	28	0.29
Random 1		89	-0.18	70	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	47	0.06	85	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.27	71	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	82	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.21	73	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	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).