Uninsky 1932

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		3	0.80	68	0.00	7	0.09	5	0.53	16	0.40	12	0.46
Anderszewski 2003		52	0.58	30	0.00	59	0.05	66	0.05	72	0.03	70	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		49	0.61	20	0.00	35	0.06	40	0.21	36	0.19	38	0.20
Bacha 2000		69	0.51	85	0.00	62	0.06	54	0.06	50	0.05	53	0.05
Badura 1965		31	0.70	2	0.04	15	0.09	22	0.41	18	0.51	13	0.46
Barbosa 1983		75	0.45	28	0.00	69	0.05	68	0.05	51	0.05	59	0.05
Biret 1990		55	0.57	39	0.00	54	0.05	59	0.05	59	0.04	75	0.04
Blet 2003		20	0.72	8	0.01	42	0.10	34	0.27	9	0.39	30	0.32
Block 1995		48	0.62	79	0.00	58	0.05	65	0.05	63	0.04	72	0.04
Blumental 1952		61	0.56	57	0.00	51	0.05	60	0.05	63	0.04	73	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.73	59	0.00	29	0.08	23	0.38	23	0.44	19	0.41
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.53	41	0.00	70	0.04	73	0.04	61	0.04	66	0.04
Bunin 1987		57	0.57	67	0.00	53	0.07	49	0.07	19	0.43	42	0.17
Bunin 1987b		60	0.56	44	0.00	52	0.06	52	0.06	19	0.44	43	0.16
Chiu 1999		54	0.58	86	0.00	55	0.06	57	0.06	65	0.03	67	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.25	81	0.00	76	0.03	86	0.03	75	0.03	88	0.03
Cortot 1951		17	0.74	25	0.00	37	0.06	32	0.28	6	0.53	22	0.39
Csalog 1996		73	0.46	63	0.00	65	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.03	85	0.03
Czerny 1949		7	0.77	31	0.00	2	0.16	4	0.55	6	0.55	5	0.55
Czerny 1990		36	0.67	43	0.00	43	0.10	41	0.20	62	0.04	49	0.09
Duchoud 2007		63	0.54	69	0.00	61	0.06	58	0.06	37	0.14	48	0.09
Ezaki 2006		32	0.70	7	0.01	31	0.06	31	0.29	38	0.18	35	0.23
Falvay 1989		87	0.32	87	0.00	88	0.03	87	0.03	86	0.02	91	0.02
Farrell 1958		71	0.48	72	0.00	71	0.05	64	0.05	65	0.05	56	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		23	0.72	14	0.01	19	0.10	28	0.31	7	0.48	21	0.39
Fliere 1977		16	0.74	36	0.00	23	0.13	18	0.44	33	0.20	31	0.30
Fou 1978		38	0.66	45	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.16	31	0.20	40	0.18
Francois 1956		64	0.54	88	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	48	0.05	78	0.04
Friedman 1923		21	0.72	89	0.00	9	0.08	14	0.47	9	0.56	7	0.51
Friedman 1923b		25	0.71	55	0.00	8	0.10	12	0.48	9	0.56	6	0.52
Friedman 1930		30	0.70	83	0.00	28	0.10	24	0.37	13	0.51	17	0.43
Garcia 2007		18	0.73	82	0.00	38	0.08	37	0.25	25	0.34	32	0.29
Garcia 2007b		10	0.76	26	0.00	13	0.12	11	0.49	9	0.52	9	0.50
Gierzod 1998		26	0.71	29	0.00	21	0.10	19	0.43	26	0.33	23	0.38
Gornostaeva 1994		53	0.58	12	0.01	60	0.05	62	0.05	58	0.05	63	0.05
Groot 1988		74	0.45	70	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	76	0.04	76	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.76	16	0.00	17	0.11	8	0.52	17	0.39	15	0.45
Hatto 1993		46	0.62	71	0.00	27	0.08	27	0.32	20	0.34	26	0.33
Hatto 1997		43	0.64	50	0.00	26	0.08	26	0.32	20	0.34	25	0.33
Horowitz 1949		14	0.75	32	0.00	24	0.11	20	0.42	14	0.49	14	0.45
Indjic 1988		42	0.64	53	0.00	25	0.09	25	0.33	20	0.35	24	0.34
Kapell 1951		22	0.72	11	0.01	18	0.10	17	0.44	19	0.24	27	0.32
Kissin 1993		9	0.77	40	0.00	22	0.11	15	0.47	21	0.40	16	0.43
Kushner 1989		45	0.63	27	0.00	57	0.07	50	0.07	69	0.04	57	0.05
Luisada 1991		28	0.70	21	0.00	40	0.08	36	0.25	46	0.07	44	0.13
Lushtak 2004		67	0.52	73	0.00	66	0.05	63	0.05	53	0.05	62	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		50	0.60	5	0.02	6	0.13	38	0.24	10	0.42	28	0.32
Magaloff 1978		76	0.44	23	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.04	80	0.03
Magin 1975		24	0.72	58	0.00	33	0.05	30	0.29	34	0.21	34	0.25
Michalowski 1933		13	0.75	19	0.00	4	0.15	9	0.52	4	0.58	4	0.55
Milkina 1970		40	0.66	17	0.00	47	0.07	48	0.07	66	0.04	58	0.05
Mohovich 1999		51	0.59	64	0.00	63	0.09	47	0.09	80	0.04	52	0.06
Moravec 1969		58	0.56	4	0.03	30	0.06	45	0.13	29	0.28	39	0.19
Morozova 2008		27	0.71	6	0.02	41	0.08	39	0.24	31	0.23	36	0.23
Neighaus 1950		35	0.68	48	0.00	20	0.09	21	0.42	27	0.38	20	0.40
Niedzielski 1931		11	0.76	9	0.01	5	0.12	2	0.56	3	0.61	2	0.58
Ohlsson 1999		56	0.57	46	0.00	34	0.05	42	0.20	38	0.15	41	0.17
Osinska 1989		41	0.66	65	0.00	49	0.06	55	0.06	65	0.04	54	0.05
Pachmann 1927		66	0.53	38	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	71	0.03	84	0.03
Paderewski 1930		59	0.56	60	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	57	0.03	83	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		33	0.69	51	0.00	32	0.05	35	0.26	27	0.25	33	0.25
Pierdomenico 2008		85	0.35	61	0.00	80	0.02	88	0.02	71	0.04	81	0.03
Poblocka 1999		4	0.80	13	0.01	14	0.11	10	0.50	18	0.44	10	0.47
Rabcewiczowa 1932		44	0.64	10	0.01	48	0.07	51	0.07	40	0.12	47	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.62	18	0.00	50	0.06	53	0.06	48	0.06	51	0.06
Rangell 2001		83	0.38	35	0.00	75	0.03	83	0.03	56	0.04	89	0.03
Richter 1976		29	0.70	24	0.00	45	0.10	43	0.19	11	0.53	29	0.32
Rosen 1989		37	0.67	22	0.00	46	0.10	46	0.10	59	0.05	50	0.07
Rosenthal 1930		68	0.51	33	0.00	72	0.05	61	0.05	48	0.05	61	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.41	66	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	46	0.08	60	0.05
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.40	74	0.00	85	0.04	74	0.04	46	0.07	65	0.05
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.39	42	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	74	0.04	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.39	75	0.00	86	0.04	71	0.04	48	0.07	64	0.05
Rossi 2007		77	0.42	80	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.04	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		72	0.47	15	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		84	0.36	37	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	62	0.05	77	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		81	0.39	49	0.00	83	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.03	86	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		5	0.78	3	0.04	3	0.21	3	0.56	10	0.56	3	0.56
Shebanova 2002		15	0.74	34	0.00	12	0.11	16	0.46	23	0.36	18	0.41
Smith 1975		62	0.56	54	0.00	68	0.05	67	0.05	85	0.03	68	0.04
Sokolov 2002		70	0.49	47	0.00	56	0.06	56	0.06	52	0.05	55	0.05
Sztompka 1959		8	0.77	56	0.00	10	0.08	7	0.52	20	0.40	11	0.46
Tomsic 1995		86	0.34	90	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.03
Uninsky 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Uninsky 1971		1	0.91	1	0.70	1	0.69	1	0.86	1	0.81	1	0.83
Wasowski 1980		6	0.78	76	0.00	16	0.09	13	0.48	5	0.52	8	0.50
Zak 1937		34	0.68	91	0.00	36	0.06	29	0.31	49	0.05	45	0.12
Zak 1951		39	0.66	62	0.00	39	0.06	33	0.28	56	0.05	46	0.12
Average		2	0.80	52	0.00	11	0.08	6	0.53	46	0.08	37	0.21
Random 1		90	-0.16	77	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	30	0.19	74	0.04
Random 2		89	-0.13	84	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	35	0.14	71	0.04
Random 3		91	-0.18	78	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	43	0.10	87	0.03

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).