Pachmann 1927

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		69	0.21	53	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	86	0.03	68	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		58	0.24	80	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.13	81	0.03	47	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		22	0.35	22	0.01	36	0.10	35	0.25	62	0.03	37	0.09
Bacha 2000		54	0.25	35	0.00	61	0.03	71	0.03	83	0.03	61	0.03
Badura 1965		67	0.22	26	0.01	49	0.04	59	0.04	83	0.02	70	0.03
Barbosa 1983		62	0.23	87	0.00	59	0.05	55	0.05	83	0.03	55	0.04
Biret 1990		49	0.25	88	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	71	0.04	59	0.04
Blet 2003		84	0.11	28	0.01	85	0.01	88	0.01	87	0.02	89	0.01
Block 1995		78	0.17	61	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	70	0.04	58	0.04
Blumental 1952		66	0.22	71	0.00	73	0.03	62	0.03	77	0.04	71	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		1	0.44	2	0.13	2	0.17	1	0.66	53	0.06	10	0.20
Brailowsky 1960		83	0.11	72	0.00	86	0.01	89	0.01	85	0.02	88	0.01
Bunin 1987		47	0.27	47	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	72	0.04	50	0.05
Bunin 1987b		48	0.26	54	0.00	47	0.05	51	0.05	77	0.03	53	0.04
Chiu 1999		59	0.24	50	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	69	0.04	52	0.04
Cohen 1997		77	0.17	82	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.03
Cortot 1951		87	0.08	67	0.00	79	0.02	81	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Csalog 1996		34	0.32	36	0.00	32	0.09	27	0.36	79	0.03	35	0.10
Czerny 1949		11	0.38	7	0.05	10	0.14	12	0.52	51	0.07	11	0.19
Czerny 1990		30	0.32	32	0.00	21	0.08	21	0.44	75	0.03	34	0.11
Duchoud 2007		18	0.36	41	0.00	26	0.07	20	0.44	25	0.44	1	0.44
Ezaki 2006		23	0.35	8	0.03	12	0.16	11	0.54	59	0.05	14	0.16
Falvay 1989		24	0.35	70	0.00	24	0.07	25	0.37	60	0.05	18	0.14
Farrell 1958		28	0.33	55	0.00	15	0.10	10	0.55	55	0.05	13	0.17
Ferenczy 1958		60	0.24	52	0.00	63	0.03	72	0.03	85	0.03	66	0.03
Fliere 1977		38	0.30	65	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	82	0.03	46	0.06
Fou 1978		16	0.37	20	0.01	23	0.08	19	0.46	77	0.03	28	0.12
Francois 1956		55	0.24	62	0.00	54	0.06	50	0.06	74	0.03	60	0.04
Friedman 1923		76	0.19	43	0.00	72	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.04	77	0.03
Friedman 1923b		64	0.23	31	0.00	62	0.03	64	0.03	70	0.04	73	0.03
Friedman 1930		70	0.21	40	0.00	74	0.03	65	0.03	74	0.04	64	0.03
Garcia 2007		43	0.29	49	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.13	67	0.04	43	0.07
Garcia 2007b		33	0.32	23	0.01	28	0.09	24	0.38	39	0.18	6	0.26
Gierzod 1998		5	0.42	27	0.01	22	0.08	17	0.47	81	0.03	30	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		2	0.43	5	0.06	3	0.13	3	0.65	44	0.08	7	0.23
Groot 1988		81	0.15	73	0.00	75	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		29	0.33	68	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.14	70	0.04	45	0.07
Hatto 1993		74	0.20	74	0.00	71	0.03	67	0.03	87	0.03	75	0.03
Hatto 1997		71	0.21	83	0.00	60	0.03	66	0.03	84	0.03	65	0.03
Horowitz 1949		85	0.10	44	0.00	89	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.02	81	0.02
Indjic 1988		75	0.19	89	0.00	70	0.03	74	0.03	88	0.02	83	0.02
Kapell 1951		3	0.43	1	0.19	1	0.19	2	0.66	54	0.06	8	0.20
Kissin 1993		19	0.36	30	0.00	20	0.07	14	0.47	56	0.05	17	0.15
Kushner 1989		8	0.40	11	0.02	11	0.14	5	0.62	79	0.03	19	0.14
Luisada 1991		68	0.22	84	0.00	80	0.03	76	0.03	83	0.03	62	0.03
Lushtak 2004		40	0.30	64	0.00	19	0.07	23	0.40	52	0.05	21	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		17	0.36	4	0.06	9	0.10	9	0.55	51	0.07	9	0.20
Magaloff 1978		45	0.28	46	0.00	25	0.07	34	0.28	64	0.04	33	0.11
Magin 1975		6	0.42	9	0.03	5	0.12	4	0.64	55	0.05	12	0.18
Michalowski 1933		57	0.24	15	0.01	53	0.06	46	0.06	24	0.29	26	0.13
Milkina 1970		21	0.36	81	0.00	33	0.11	28	0.34	62	0.05	25	0.13
Mohovich 1999		42	0.30	75	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.22	84	0.03	41	0.08
Moravec 1969		36	0.31	48	0.00	34	0.08	36	0.23	62	0.05	31	0.11
Morozova 2008		41	0.30	58	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.06	74	0.04	49	0.05
Neighaus 1950		32	0.32	29	0.00	35	0.08	30	0.31	48	0.06	23	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		82	0.12	90	0.00	81	0.02	82	0.02	82	0.02	80	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		53	0.25	69	0.00	58	0.05	53	0.05	82	0.03	54	0.04
Osinska 1989		15	0.37	13	0.02	27	0.07	32	0.30	74	0.04	32	0.11
Pachmann 1927		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Paderewski 1930		25	0.34	12	0.02	29	0.08	29	0.34	23	0.34	3	0.34
Perlemuter 1992		35	0.31	45	0.00	52	0.06	48	0.06	58	0.04	48	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		4	0.43	10	0.02	16	0.10	18	0.47	34	0.29	2	0.37
Poblocka 1999		51	0.25	14	0.02	39	0.06	42	0.13	75	0.04	42	0.07
Rabcewiczowa 1932		7	0.40	3	0.09	4	0.13	6	0.59	38	0.15	4	0.30
Rachmaninoff 1923		86	0.10	85	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.02	78	0.02
Rangell 2001		27	0.33	39	0.00	17	0.09	26	0.37	64	0.05	22	0.14
Richter 1976		9	0.40	6	0.06	6	0.12	13	0.51	49	0.05	15	0.16
Rosen 1989		12	0.38	24	0.01	31	0.09	31	0.31	80	0.03	36	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		56	0.24	34	0.00	69	0.04	60	0.04	76	0.03	69	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		73	0.20	56	0.00	76	0.02	80	0.02	79	0.03	84	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.15	57	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		63	0.23	59	0.00	66	0.03	69	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		79	0.15	66	0.00	88	0.02	83	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02
Rossi 2007		26	0.34	21	0.01	30	0.09	33	0.30	48	0.06	24	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		10	0.39	17	0.01	8	0.10	7	0.58	64	0.04	16	0.15
Rubinstein 1952		31	0.32	19	0.01	7	0.10	22	0.41	63	0.04	27	0.13
Rubinstein 1966		37	0.30	63	0.00	41	0.07	39	0.17	75	0.04	39	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		39	0.30	37	0.00	46	0.05	57	0.05	83	0.03	56	0.04
Shebanova 2002		50	0.25	42	0.00	51	0.05	58	0.05	82	0.03	57	0.04
Smith 1975		65	0.22	76	0.00	67	0.03	70	0.03	88	0.02	79	0.02
Sokolov 2002		44	0.29	77	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.21	74	0.03	38	0.08
Sztompka 1959		52	0.25	33	0.00	64	0.03	63	0.03	86	0.02	82	0.02
Tomsic 1995		13	0.38	16	0.01	13	0.17	8	0.56	44	0.12	5	0.26
Uninsky 1932		72	0.20	86	0.00	50	0.05	52	0.05	84	0.02	67	0.03
Uninsky 1971		61	0.23	78	0.00	65	0.03	68	0.03	82	0.03	63	0.03
Wasowski 1980		46	0.28	79	0.00	57	0.06	47	0.06	83	0.03	51	0.04
Zak 1937		14	0.37	18	0.01	14	0.10	15	0.47	68	0.04	20	0.14
Zak 1951		20	0.36	25	0.01	18	0.08	16	0.47	84	0.03	29	0.12
Random 1		88	-0.01	60	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	24	0.31	40	0.08
Random 2		89	-0.04	51	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	80	0.03	85	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.08	38	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	22	0.28	44	0.07

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).