Afanassiev 2001

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		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Anderszewski 2003		76	0.28	87	0.00	76	0.03	75	0.03	88	0.02	90	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		5	0.51	32	0.00	12	0.12	7	0.54	10	0.46	3	0.50
Bacha 2000		67	0.33	24	0.00	61	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.03
Badura 1965		29	0.41	6	0.06	9	0.10	21	0.41	31	0.26	11	0.33
Barbosa 1983		60	0.34	33	0.00	48	0.04	59	0.04	72	0.04	63	0.04
Biret 1990		6	0.50	4	0.07	3	0.23	3	0.66	38	0.22	8	0.38
Blet 2003		35	0.40	61	0.00	39	0.06	37	0.18	56	0.05	41	0.09
Block 1995		82	0.24	77	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	57	0.05	67	0.04
Blumental 1952		17	0.44	23	0.00	14	0.12	10	0.52	43	0.13	13	0.26
Boshniakovich 1969		22	0.42	56	0.00	29	0.07	29	0.31	76	0.03	39	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		27	0.41	55	0.00	30	0.08	27	0.34	45	0.12	18	0.20
Bunin 1987		84	0.22	84	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	80	0.03	83	0.03
Bunin 1987b		85	0.22	88	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.03	88	0.02
Chiu 1999		43	0.38	36	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.13	45	0.11	32	0.12
Cohen 1997		74	0.29	58	0.00	79	0.04	56	0.04	82	0.03	82	0.03
Cortot 1951		87	0.21	45	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	64	0.04	85	0.03
Csalog 1996		53	0.36	40	0.00	51	0.04	63	0.04	78	0.04	64	0.04
Czerny 1949		62	0.33	75	0.00	70	0.04	62	0.04	84	0.02	79	0.03
Czerny 1990		45	0.38	80	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.13	60	0.05	46	0.08
Duchoud 2007		79	0.25	35	0.00	71	0.03	80	0.03	56	0.05	66	0.04
Ezaki 2006		23	0.42	14	0.01	34	0.06	38	0.17	57	0.06	38	0.10
Falvay 1989		14	0.46	44	0.00	32	0.06	36	0.20	80	0.04	40	0.09
Farrell 1958		78	0.26	20	0.00	62	0.03	83	0.03	66	0.04	75	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		58	0.35	62	0.00	73	0.05	51	0.05	47	0.07	50	0.06
Fliere 1977		13	0.46	17	0.01	24	0.08	20	0.42	55	0.05	28	0.14
Fou 1978		11	0.46	21	0.00	20	0.09	18	0.42	46	0.07	23	0.17
Francois 1956		61	0.34	52	0.00	59	0.05	53	0.05	62	0.04	70	0.04
Friedman 1923		70	0.31	34	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.15	43	0.10	34	0.12
Friedman 1923b		69	0.32	15	0.01	28	0.07	30	0.26	38	0.20	16	0.23
Friedman 1930		52	0.36	5	0.06	8	0.10	13	0.48	14	0.48	4	0.48
Garcia 2007		88	0.20	68	0.00	82	0.03	77	0.03	80	0.03	80	0.03
Garcia 2007b		68	0.33	66	0.00	54	0.04	58	0.04	66	0.05	71	0.04
Gierzod 1998		3	0.52	7	0.03	4	0.20	4	0.59	54	0.06	21	0.19
Gornostaeva 1994		59	0.35	82	0.00	58	0.05	48	0.05	79	0.03	68	0.04
Groot 1988		18	0.44	8	0.03	6	0.12	6	0.54	24	0.29	7	0.40
Harasiewicz 1955		24	0.42	81	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.39	57	0.05	30	0.14
Hatto 1993		28	0.41	85	0.00	21	0.10	19	0.42	84	0.03	37	0.11
Hatto 1997		21	0.42	73	0.00	25	0.08	26	0.38	52	0.05	29	0.14
Horowitz 1949		33	0.40	9	0.02	15	0.09	14	0.46	5	0.58	2	0.52
Indjic 1988		20	0.43	60	0.00	23	0.09	23	0.40	72	0.04	31	0.13
Kapell 1951		77	0.27	59	0.00	84	0.03	73	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Kissin 1993		26	0.42	76	0.00	37	0.05	39	0.16	53	0.07	35	0.11
Kushner 1989		39	0.39	63	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	87	0.03	76	0.03
Luisada 1991		2	0.53	3	0.10	2	0.25	2	0.69	9	0.61	1	0.65
Lushtak 2004		83	0.23	89	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		66	0.33	64	0.00	69	0.03	82	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Magaloff 1978		12	0.46	49	0.00	16	0.09	12	0.50	49	0.07	19	0.19
Magin 1975		10	0.46	18	0.01	27	0.07	28	0.31	54	0.05	33	0.12
Michalowski 1933		57	0.35	51	0.00	60	0.04	67	0.04	7	0.55	25	0.15
Milkina 1970		7	0.48	31	0.00	7	0.12	5	0.57	60	0.06	22	0.18
Mohovich 1999		19	0.43	11	0.02	13	0.11	15	0.44	41	0.14	14	0.25
Moravec 1969		65	0.33	72	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	75	0.03	73	0.03
Morozova 2008		63	0.33	22	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.15	71	0.04	44	0.08
Neighaus 1950		48	0.37	38	0.00	41	0.06	35	0.21	32	0.25	17	0.23
Niedzielski 1931		80	0.25	78	0.00	78	0.04	69	0.04	55	0.05	58	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		9	0.47	2	0.10	5	0.19	9	0.52	24	0.40	5	0.46
Osinska 1989		32	0.41	25	0.00	35	0.05	32	0.24	76	0.03	43	0.08
Pachmann 1927		86	0.21	90	0.00	88	0.03	87	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.03
Paderewski 1930		75	0.29	74	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	41	0.15	47	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		44	0.38	50	0.00	38	0.05	44	0.11	36	0.24	24	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		46	0.37	28	0.00	67	0.03	76	0.03	59	0.05	56	0.04
Poblocka 1999		56	0.35	46	0.00	57	0.05	52	0.05	72	0.05	53	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		71	0.31	54	0.00	53	0.04	60	0.04	85	0.02	74	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		37	0.39	30	0.00	19	0.09	16	0.43	37	0.23	12	0.31
Rangell 2001		81	0.24	79	0.00	85	0.03	74	0.03	77	0.04	84	0.03
Richter 1976		30	0.41	65	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	67	0.03	61	0.04
Rosen 1989		4	0.51	26	0.00	11	0.11	8	0.54	36	0.26	9	0.37
Rosenthal 1930		25	0.42	16	0.01	18	0.08	24	0.40	23	0.46	6	0.43
Rosenthal 1931		54	0.36	39	0.00	43	0.05	45	0.10	74	0.04	49	0.06
Rosenthal 1931b		55	0.35	47	0.00	50	0.04	55	0.04	56	0.05	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		41	0.38	67	0.00	49	0.04	66	0.04	49	0.08	52	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		38	0.39	53	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.22	33	0.29	15	0.25
Rossi 2007		47	0.37	48	0.00	66	0.05	50	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		51	0.36	19	0.01	68	0.04	64	0.04	63	0.04	57	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		40	0.38	13	0.01	63	0.03	84	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.36	91	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	80	0.03	78	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		15	0.46	42	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.22	56	0.04	42	0.09
Shebanova 2002		31	0.41	37	0.00	31	0.06	31	0.26	58	0.05	36	0.11
Smith 1975		8	0.47	29	0.00	17	0.12	11	0.51	40	0.23	10	0.34
Sokolov 2002		49	0.37	83	0.00	52	0.04	57	0.04	55	0.05	55	0.04
Sztompka 1959		64	0.33	12	0.01	47	0.05	54	0.05	71	0.04	62	0.04
Tomsic 1995		73	0.29	69	0.00	81	0.04	65	0.04	69	0.05	60	0.04
Uninsky 1932		72	0.30	86	0.00	80	0.05	47	0.05	74	0.03	65	0.04
Uninsky 1971		16	0.46	10	0.02	22	0.09	17	0.43	62	0.05	26	0.15
Wasowski 1980		42	0.38	41	0.00	10	0.10	22	0.40	72	0.05	27	0.14
Zak 1937		34	0.40	27	0.00	55	0.04	61	0.04	68	0.04	59	0.04
Zak 1951		36	0.39	43	0.00	56	0.07	46	0.07	50	0.06	48	0.06
Average		1	0.59	1	0.34	1	0.33	1	0.73	63	0.05	20	0.19
Random 1		91	-0.07	57	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	78	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		89	0.00	70	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	23	0.29	45	0.08
Random 3		90	-0.04	71	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	37	0.19	51	0.06

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).