Paderewski 1930

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