Csalog 1996

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		63	0.36	41	0.00	69	0.04	77	0.04	62	0.04	76	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		33	0.44	55	0.00	46	0.07	45	0.07	56	0.06	59	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		68	0.32	73	0.00	72	0.04	74	0.04	54	0.04	77	0.04
Bacha 2000		69	0.32	50	0.00	67	0.04	73	0.04	49	0.05	70	0.04
Badura 1965		30	0.45	10	0.01	40	0.06	37	0.18	13	0.45	26	0.28
Barbosa 1983		47	0.40	74	0.00	52	0.05	60	0.05	45	0.09	55	0.07
Biret 1990		18	0.48	8	0.01	22	0.08	19	0.35	36	0.23	27	0.28
Blet 2003		31	0.45	4	0.04	23	0.09	17	0.39	4	0.51	13	0.45
Block 1995		41	0.42	20	0.00	10	0.12	23	0.34	22	0.43	17	0.38
Blumental 1952		43	0.41	56	0.00	26	0.07	31	0.23	36	0.23	35	0.23
Boshniakovich 1969		21	0.47	22	0.00	27	0.09	21	0.34	44	0.09	39	0.17
Brailowsky 1960		42	0.41	66	0.00	58	0.05	62	0.05	61	0.06	63	0.05
Bunin 1987		48	0.40	67	0.00	54	0.04	67	0.04	37	0.14	57	0.07
Bunin 1987b		51	0.39	81	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	28	0.28	46	0.12
Chiu 1999		45	0.41	68	0.00	51	0.05	54	0.05	20	0.34	43	0.13
Cohen 1997		77	0.27	14	0.01	66	0.04	76	0.04	37	0.12	56	0.07
Cortot 1951		85	0.15	82	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	75	0.03	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1949		74	0.31	62	0.00	76	0.05	51	0.05	61	0.05	68	0.05
Czerny 1990		34	0.44	69	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.23	54	0.06	47	0.12
Duchoud 2007		76	0.28	47	0.00	77	0.05	56	0.05	36	0.32	44	0.13
Ezaki 2006		14	0.51	54	0.00	19	0.12	13	0.47	32	0.25	19	0.34
Falvay 1989		1	0.66	1	0.60	1	0.59	1	0.82	2	0.76	1	0.79
Farrell 1958		72	0.31	87	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	54	0.05	72	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		2	0.61	2	0.10	2	0.32	2	0.69	2	0.78	2	0.73
Fliere 1977		3	0.55	7	0.02	12	0.14	5	0.61	24	0.43	9	0.51
Fou 1978		26	0.46	15	0.01	16	0.08	20	0.35	27	0.28	22	0.31
Francois 1956		84	0.19	48	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1923		82	0.21	78	0.00	84	0.04	78	0.04	84	0.03	85	0.03
Friedman 1923b		83	0.21	83	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	77	0.04	83	0.03
Friedman 1930		73	0.31	27	0.00	73	0.04	69	0.04	55	0.06	65	0.05
Garcia 2007		36	0.43	17	0.00	25	0.08	28	0.30	5	0.63	14	0.43
Garcia 2007b		61	0.37	45	0.00	56	0.05	61	0.05	46	0.07	60	0.06
Gierzod 1998		7	0.54	28	0.00	5	0.11	7	0.60	26	0.36	11	0.46
Gornostaeva 1994		24	0.46	63	0.00	17	0.11	18	0.35	24	0.40	18	0.37
Groot 1988		19	0.48	84	0.00	34	0.06	30	0.23	28	0.24	36	0.23
Harasiewicz 1955		23	0.46	75	0.00	28	0.07	27	0.32	47	0.07	40	0.15
Hatto 1993		29	0.45	35	0.00	21	0.08	24	0.33	35	0.23	29	0.28
Hatto 1997		16	0.48	6	0.02	8	0.13	14	0.47	30	0.36	16	0.41
Horowitz 1949		78	0.27	57	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	66	0.04	80	0.03
Indjic 1988		22	0.47	37	0.00	14	0.13	15	0.41	33	0.29	20	0.34
Kapell 1951		6	0.54	5	0.03	3	0.26	9	0.54	20	0.53	7	0.53
Kissin 1993		32	0.44	24	0.00	30	0.06	33	0.23	34	0.39	25	0.30
Kushner 1989		13	0.51	13	0.01	15	0.10	12	0.51	43	0.19	23	0.31
Luisada 1991		64	0.36	79	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	45	0.07	61	0.05
Lushtak 2004		25	0.46	39	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.21	49	0.05	50	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		46	0.40	32	0.00	37	0.06	39	0.16	59	0.05	51	0.09
Magaloff 1978		56	0.38	30	0.00	68	0.05	59	0.05	62	0.04	71	0.04
Magin 1975		9	0.54	18	0.00	13	0.14	10	0.54	14	0.54	6	0.54
Michalowski 1933		87	0.13	85	0.00	86	0.02	83	0.02	44	0.09	74	0.04
Milkina 1970		39	0.42	31	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.11	65	0.05	54	0.07
Mohovich 1999		11	0.52	3	0.05	4	0.18	3	0.66	11	0.58	3	0.62
Moravec 1969		17	0.48	21	0.00	33	0.06	29	0.27	34	0.20	31	0.23
Morozova 2008		53	0.39	76	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	35	0.16	49	0.10
Neighaus 1950		81	0.23	88	0.00	81	0.02	85	0.02	83	0.02	89	0.02
Niedzielski 1931		67	0.32	46	0.00	45	0.07	46	0.07	12	0.43	38	0.17
Ohlsson 1999		71	0.31	64	0.00	64	0.05	57	0.05	65	0.04	73	0.04
Osinska 1989		4	0.55	58	0.00	6	0.13	4	0.66	27	0.49	5	0.57
Pachmann 1927		70	0.32	51	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	27	0.36	48	0.10
Paderewski 1930		86	0.14	52	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	78	0.03	86	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		49	0.39	60	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	22	0.38	45	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		50	0.39	19	0.00	32	0.06	36	0.19	22	0.48	24	0.30
Poblocka 1999		37	0.43	34	0.00	20	0.08	25	0.33	42	0.16	32	0.23
Rabcewiczowa 1932		57	0.38	70	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	46	0.06	58	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		60	0.37	71	0.00	57	0.06	48	0.06	70	0.04	64	0.05
Rangell 2001		80	0.24	86	0.00	79	0.04	72	0.04	75	0.04	78	0.04
Richter 1976		40	0.42	72	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	44	0.12	52	0.08
Rosen 1989		27	0.46	23	0.00	35	0.06	35	0.19	32	0.29	34	0.23
Rosenthal 1930		65	0.35	77	0.00	71	0.04	63	0.04	39	0.16	53	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		44	0.41	38	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.13	12	0.50	30	0.25
Rosenthal 1931b		28	0.45	12	0.01	39	0.06	38	0.18	7	0.58	21	0.32
Rosenthal 1931c		20	0.47	36	0.00	24	0.08	22	0.34	10	0.63	12	0.46
Rosenthal 1931d		35	0.44	61	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.14	10	0.57	28	0.28
Rossi 2007		55	0.38	42	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.11	10	0.48	33	0.23
Rubinstein 1939		54	0.38	43	0.00	59	0.04	71	0.04	74	0.03	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		15	0.49	40	0.00	29	0.07	26	0.32	48	0.07	41	0.15
Rubinstein 1966		5	0.55	25	0.00	7	0.14	6	0.61	31	0.42	10	0.51
Schilhawsky 1960		66	0.34	80	0.00	65	0.03	80	0.03	61	0.04	82	0.03
Shebanova 2002		52	0.39	89	0.00	55	0.05	58	0.05	52	0.06	67	0.05
Smith 1975		59	0.37	29	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.16	42	0.19	37	0.17
Sokolov 2002		38	0.43	16	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	31	0.33	42	0.13
Sztompka 1959		79	0.25	65	0.00	78	0.04	68	0.04	80	0.03	81	0.03
Tomsic 1995		8	0.54	11	0.01	9	0.12	8	0.56	3	0.63	4	0.59
Uninsky 1932		75	0.31	49	0.00	63	0.04	65	0.04	48	0.07	66	0.05
Uninsky 1971		58	0.37	53	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	73	0.04	75	0.04
Wasowski 1980		62	0.36	33	0.00	62	0.05	52	0.05	58	0.06	62	0.05
Zak 1937		12	0.51	44	0.00	18	0.12	16	0.40	20	0.44	15	0.42
Zak 1951		10	0.54	9	0.01	11	0.13	11	0.51	15	0.55	8	0.53
Random 1		89	-0.10	59	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	62	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.12	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.03	87	0.02
Random 3		88	-0.05	26	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	39	0.14	69	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).