Ferenczy 1958

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		54	0.35	56	0.00	66	0.07	46	0.07	50	0.05	51	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		30	0.41	49	0.00	33	0.10	29	0.39	68	0.04	38	0.12
Ashkenazy 1981		76	0.27	63	0.00	83	0.04	73	0.04	84	0.02	78	0.03
Bacha 2000		79	0.24	57	0.00	82	0.03	78	0.03	86	0.02	82	0.02
Badura 1965		35	0.40	14	0.01	39	0.06	39	0.17	55	0.05	43	0.09
Barbosa 1983		23	0.44	60	0.00	32	0.11	30	0.35	48	0.08	30	0.17
Biret 1990		36	0.40	58	0.00	26	0.07	36	0.24	70	0.04	40	0.10
Blet 2003		48	0.37	9	0.02	25	0.07	35	0.27	32	0.19	22	0.23
Block 1995		24	0.44	3	0.11	4	0.18	13	0.57	15	0.49	5	0.53
Blumental 1952		3	0.55	4	0.08	3	0.34	3	0.74	13	0.60	3	0.67
Boshniakovich 1969		40	0.39	76	0.00	34	0.11	34	0.28	73	0.03	44	0.09
Brailowsky 1960		6	0.52	5	0.05	5	0.17	4	0.69	18	0.53	4	0.60
Bunin 1987		46	0.37	61	0.00	46	0.06	56	0.06	59	0.05	58	0.05
Bunin 1987b		53	0.35	43	0.00	58	0.05	61	0.05	74	0.04	63	0.04
Chiu 1999		29	0.41	13	0.01	19	0.07	16	0.54	12	0.43	7	0.48
Cohen 1997		82	0.23	62	0.00	69	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03
Cortot 1951		80	0.24	70	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	60	0.05	68	0.04
Csalog 1996		2	0.61	1	0.35	1	0.35	2	0.78	2	0.69	1	0.73
Czerny 1949		62	0.32	77	0.00	68	0.05	65	0.05	79	0.03	66	0.04
Czerny 1990		16	0.48	30	0.00	13	0.13	12	0.59	51	0.06	26	0.19
Duchoud 2007		86	0.10	64	0.00	85	0.03	76	0.03	80	0.02	86	0.02
Ezaki 2006		22	0.45	54	0.00	35	0.11	33	0.30	66	0.05	37	0.12
Falvay 1989		1	0.61	2	0.20	2	0.46	1	0.79	15	0.60	2	0.69
Farrell 1958		83	0.22	59	0.00	78	0.03	86	0.03	83	0.03	70	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fliere 1977		5	0.53	23	0.00	8	0.13	6	0.67	68	0.05	27	0.18
Fou 1978		21	0.45	29	0.00	16	0.08	18	0.52	43	0.11	21	0.24
Francois 1956		85	0.12	52	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Friedman 1923		68	0.30	39	0.00	55	0.05	60	0.05	38	0.15	46	0.09
Friedman 1923b		67	0.31	36	0.00	54	0.06	55	0.06	42	0.15	45	0.09
Friedman 1930		64	0.32	28	0.00	56	0.07	47	0.07	51	0.06	50	0.06
Garcia 2007		77	0.27	71	0.00	74	0.04	70	0.04	47	0.06	57	0.05
Garcia 2007b		70	0.28	72	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	71	0.04	81	0.03
Gierzod 1998		11	0.50	18	0.00	20	0.08	15	0.54	66	0.04	34	0.15
Gornostaeva 1994		14	0.48	87	0.00	17	0.11	17	0.53	37	0.23	13	0.35
Groot 1988		33	0.41	8	0.02	23	0.07	21	0.51	39	0.14	20	0.27
Harasiewicz 1955		15	0.48	42	0.00	18	0.13	23	0.48	50	0.06	32	0.17
Hatto 1993		10	0.50	11	0.01	9	0.13	8	0.63	38	0.20	14	0.35
Hatto 1997		8	0.51	44	0.00	10	0.10	9	0.63	40	0.15	16	0.31
Horowitz 1949		59	0.34	19	0.00	37	0.08	38	0.19	15	0.43	19	0.29
Indjic 1988		7	0.51	27	0.00	11	0.12	10	0.63	45	0.08	24	0.22
Kapell 1951		49	0.36	88	0.00	51	0.04	67	0.04	76	0.03	71	0.03
Kissin 1993		50	0.36	81	0.00	52	0.05	59	0.05	53	0.07	49	0.06
Kushner 1989		51	0.36	89	0.00	60	0.07	49	0.07	83	0.03	54	0.05
Luisada 1991		20	0.46	6	0.03	15	0.09	22	0.49	23	0.38	9	0.43
Lushtak 2004		34	0.41	16	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.15	86	0.03	48	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		47	0.37	38	0.00	50	0.04	68	0.04	66	0.04	64	0.04
Magaloff 1978		42	0.39	55	0.00	53	0.05	63	0.05	65	0.04	60	0.04
Magin 1975		45	0.37	68	0.00	61	0.06	58	0.06	57	0.04	53	0.05
Michalowski 1933		87	0.08	78	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.01	88	0.01
Milkina 1970		61	0.32	82	0.00	73	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.02	84	0.02
Mohovich 1999		17	0.46	40	0.00	14	0.09	14	0.57	55	0.05	31	0.17
Moravec 1969		13	0.49	15	0.01	12	0.11	11	0.60	31	0.24	10	0.38
Morozova 2008		73	0.27	12	0.01	79	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.03	77	0.03
Neighaus 1950		72	0.28	50	0.00	64	0.06	53	0.06	53	0.05	59	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		55	0.34	34	0.00	28	0.07	32	0.33	11	0.43	11	0.38
Ohlsson 1999		71	0.28	83	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.03	75	0.03
Osinska 1989		4	0.55	10	0.02	7	0.19	7	0.66	56	0.06	25	0.20
Pachmann 1927		81	0.24	51	0.00	77	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.03	74	0.03
Paderewski 1930		84	0.14	53	0.00	84	0.04	71	0.04	77	0.03	73	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		66	0.32	21	0.00	41	0.06	44	0.11	44	0.10	39	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		75	0.27	41	0.00	49	0.05	66	0.05	65	0.04	61	0.04
Poblocka 1999		9	0.51	22	0.00	6	0.19	5	0.68	31	0.31	8	0.46
Rabcewiczowa 1932		60	0.33	35	0.00	57	0.06	51	0.06	72	0.03	62	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.40	20	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	46	0.06	41	0.09
Rangell 2001		78	0.24	31	0.00	81	0.04	72	0.04	73	0.04	67	0.04
Richter 1976		57	0.34	65	0.00	67	0.05	64	0.05	86	0.02	72	0.03
Rosen 1989		25	0.43	7	0.02	22	0.09	19	0.51	44	0.19	17	0.31
Rosenthal 1930		28	0.42	45	0.00	45	0.06	57	0.06	25	0.39	35	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		38	0.39	48	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.22	19	0.42	18	0.30
Rosenthal 1931b		43	0.39	74	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.12	18	0.45	23	0.23
Rosenthal 1931c		32	0.41	17	0.00	29	0.07	27	0.39	20	0.38	12	0.38
Rosenthal 1931d		26	0.43	37	0.00	31	0.09	25	0.43	11	0.56	6	0.49
Rossi 2007		74	0.27	33	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	76	0.03	69	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		69	0.29	66	0.00	76	0.03	84	0.03	87	0.02	83	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		52	0.36	69	0.00	63	0.06	50	0.06	87	0.02	80	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		41	0.39	79	0.00	48	0.05	62	0.05	78	0.04	65	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		58	0.34	84	0.00	70	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.03	76	0.03
Shebanova 2002		31	0.41	75	0.00	24	0.08	26	0.42	65	0.04	36	0.13
Smith 1975		39	0.39	32	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.15	55	0.05	42	0.09
Sokolov 2002		65	0.32	85	0.00	59	0.07	48	0.07	62	0.03	52	0.05
Sztompka 1959		56	0.34	67	0.00	65	0.09	45	0.09	48	0.05	47	0.07
Tomsic 1995		44	0.39	80	0.00	47	0.06	52	0.06	64	0.05	55	0.05
Uninsky 1932		63	0.32	46	0.00	62	0.06	54	0.06	64	0.04	56	0.05
Uninsky 1971		19	0.46	26	0.00	30	0.07	24	0.44	47	0.07	29	0.18
Wasowski 1980		27	0.42	24	0.00	36	0.13	28	0.39	56	0.06	33	0.15
Zak 1937		12	0.49	25	0.00	21	0.09	20	0.51	37	0.23	15	0.34
Zak 1951		18	0.46	73	0.00	27	0.09	31	0.34	39	0.10	28	0.18
Random 1		89	-0.09	47	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	73	0.02	89	0.01
Random 2		88	-0.05	86	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	74	0.03	85	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.14	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	86	0.02	90	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).