Anderszewski 2003

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		80	0.28	87	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	75	0.03	91	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ashkenazy 1981		67	0.36	71	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	41	0.13	68	0.07
Bacha 2000		54	0.43	19	0.01	44	0.08	43	0.15	6	0.56	42	0.29
Badura 1965		39	0.48	38	0.00	42	0.09	38	0.27	6	0.55	35	0.39
Barbosa 1983		6	0.62	18	0.01	7	0.18	3	0.72	5	0.71	2	0.71
Biret 1990		34	0.50	64	0.00	46	0.09	46	0.09	40	0.13	57	0.11
Blet 2003		63	0.39	72	0.00	68	0.05	65	0.05	46	0.07	72	0.06
Block 1995		17	0.56	16	0.01	29	0.12	27	0.45	6	0.68	20	0.55
Blumental 1952		46	0.45	55	0.00	55	0.06	59	0.06	57	0.06	75	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		31	0.51	13	0.01	13	0.14	13	0.57	9	0.56	17	0.56
Brailowsky 1960		19	0.55	9	0.02	30	0.11	33	0.34	15	0.56	29	0.44
Bunin 1987		32	0.50	67	0.00	37	0.10	34	0.33	4	0.62	28	0.45
Bunin 1987b		37	0.49	50	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.23	6	0.60	39	0.37
Chiu 1999		66	0.37	45	0.00	67	0.05	66	0.05	43	0.13	64	0.08
Cohen 1997		72	0.33	44	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	34	0.15	65	0.08
Cortot 1951		70	0.34	25	0.00	60	0.06	61	0.06	23	0.44	49	0.16
Csalog 1996		50	0.44	46	0.00	56	0.06	57	0.06	46	0.07	71	0.06
Czerny 1949		24	0.54	22	0.00	12	0.14	14	0.57	15	0.67	11	0.62
Czerny 1990		5	0.62	6	0.03	2	0.21	2	0.74	8	0.76	1	0.75
Duchoud 2007		82	0.25	29	0.00	71	0.04	73	0.04	30	0.43	53	0.13
Ezaki 2006		10	0.59	8	0.02	20	0.10	15	0.56	15	0.54	18	0.55
Falvay 1989		2	0.63	4	0.05	10	0.18	4	0.68	9	0.66	5	0.67
Farrell 1958		48	0.45	76	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.26	20	0.49	41	0.36
Ferenczy 1958		59	0.41	56	0.00	63	0.04	69	0.04	30	0.39	55	0.12
Fliere 1977		12	0.58	11	0.01	16	0.11	17	0.52	18	0.50	24	0.51
Fou 1978		25	0.53	47	0.00	32	0.14	28	0.44	18	0.44	30	0.44
Francois 1956		85	0.24	77	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	61	0.05	85	0.04
Friedman 1923		73	0.33	52	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	41	0.13	76	0.06
Friedman 1923b		75	0.33	53	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	46	0.07	78	0.05
Friedman 1930		77	0.31	78	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	51	0.06	83	0.04
Garcia 2007		69	0.34	73	0.00	66	0.06	54	0.06	32	0.33	52	0.14
Garcia 2007b		64	0.39	35	0.00	34	0.06	44	0.13	27	0.38	45	0.22
Gierzod 1998		21	0.54	36	0.00	22	0.12	18	0.52	28	0.35	32	0.43
Gornostaeva 1994		20	0.54	34	0.00	17	0.09	20	0.50	8	0.60	21	0.55
Groot 1988		57	0.42	37	0.00	50	0.08	47	0.08	32	0.20	54	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		8	0.61	5	0.04	11	0.18	11	0.61	16	0.60	13	0.60
Hatto 1993		23	0.54	28	0.00	19	0.12	24	0.48	16	0.50	25	0.49
Hatto 1997		30	0.52	39	0.00	28	0.14	29	0.43	19	0.45	31	0.44
Horowitz 1949		78	0.31	79	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	50	0.06	82	0.04
Indjic 1988		29	0.53	80	0.00	27	0.13	26	0.45	21	0.49	27	0.47
Kapell 1951		4	0.63	3	0.06	6	0.24	7	0.66	7	0.71	4	0.68
Kissin 1993		22	0.54	81	0.00	25	0.12	25	0.47	10	0.67	16	0.56
Kushner 1989		3	0.63	20	0.01	4	0.15	6	0.66	8	0.65	7	0.65
Luisada 1991		52	0.43	57	0.00	64	0.05	62	0.05	38	0.20	58	0.10
Lushtak 2004		16	0.56	21	0.00	21	0.11	19	0.51	9	0.59	19	0.55
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.57	2	0.10	3	0.18	10	0.63	6	0.64	8	0.63
Magaloff 1978		27	0.53	49	0.00	35	0.06	37	0.29	19	0.47	38	0.37
Magin 1975		45	0.46	74	0.00	49	0.05	64	0.05	36	0.20	59	0.10
Michalowski 1933		88	0.14	88	0.00	88	0.02	85	0.02	55	0.04	88	0.03
Milkina 1970		11	0.59	7	0.02	5	0.21	9	0.63	10	0.61	9	0.62
Mohovich 1999		26	0.53	58	0.00	31	0.10	31	0.36	26	0.42	36	0.39
Moravec 1969		18	0.56	43	0.00	24	0.10	22	0.49	6	0.65	15	0.56
Morozova 2008		42	0.47	51	0.00	26	0.10	30	0.42	15	0.54	26	0.48
Neighaus 1950		74	0.33	89	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	35	0.19	66	0.08
Niedzielski 1931		79	0.29	59	0.00	81	0.04	68	0.04	57	0.05	81	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		56	0.42	65	0.00	43	0.08	42	0.17	28	0.38	43	0.25
Osinska 1989		13	0.58	10	0.01	8	0.17	5	0.68	16	0.62	6	0.65
Pachmann 1927		84	0.24	82	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	42	0.13	70	0.06
Paderewski 1930		87	0.16	68	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	59	0.04	87	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		83	0.25	69	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	69	0.04	86	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		86	0.23	90	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	46	0.06	80	0.04
Poblocka 1999		9	0.60	26	0.00	14	0.18	12	0.60	9	0.63	12	0.61
Rabcewiczowa 1932		65	0.38	48	0.00	52	0.07	49	0.07	55	0.05	69	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		44	0.46	70	0.00	47	0.06	58	0.06	28	0.36	50	0.15
Rangell 2001		51	0.43	60	0.00	48	0.06	60	0.06	20	0.46	47	0.17
Richter 1976		28	0.53	41	0.00	23	0.10	21	0.50	10	0.67	14	0.58
Rosen 1989		55	0.42	54	0.00	54	0.05	63	0.05	40	0.23	56	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		71	0.34	75	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	42	0.13	74	0.06
Rosenthal 1931		61	0.39	42	0.00	65	0.06	56	0.06	17	0.45	48	0.16
Rosenthal 1931b		68	0.35	83	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	31	0.25	62	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		60	0.40	30	0.00	62	0.04	70	0.04	29	0.27	63	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.32	84	0.00	78	0.02	87	0.02	52	0.06	89	0.03
Rossi 2007		81	0.28	61	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	52	0.05	79	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		35	0.49	32	0.00	38	0.08	36	0.31	20	0.46	37	0.38
Rubinstein 1952		15	0.56	17	0.01	18	0.10	16	0.56	19	0.53	23	0.54
Rubinstein 1966		7	0.61	12	0.01	9	0.25	8	0.66	21	0.58	10	0.62
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.39	14	0.01	61	0.08	48	0.08	45	0.13	60	0.10
Shebanova 2002		58	0.42	62	0.00	57	0.06	53	0.06	46	0.07	73	0.06
Smith 1975		41	0.47	40	0.00	53	0.07	51	0.07	33	0.29	51	0.14
Sokolov 2002		53	0.43	63	0.00	51	0.07	52	0.07	16	0.50	46	0.19
Sztompka 1959		40	0.48	24	0.00	15	0.13	23	0.49	16	0.59	22	0.54
Tomsic 1995		38	0.48	27	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	20	0.45	44	0.23
Uninsky 1932		49	0.44	31	0.00	39	0.07	41	0.22	12	0.63	40	0.37
Uninsky 1971		36	0.49	85	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.32	22	0.50	34	0.40
Wasowski 1980		33	0.50	23	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.36	20	0.48	33	0.42
Zak 1937		43	0.46	15	0.01	58	0.07	50	0.07	46	0.07	67	0.07
Zak 1951		47	0.45	66	0.00	59	0.06	55	0.06	65	0.04	77	0.05
Average		1	0.71	1	0.52	1	0.52	1	0.86	18	0.59	3	0.71
Random 1		89	0.02	33	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	2	0.55	61	0.10
Random 2		90	-0.01	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	70	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.08	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	42	0.14	84	0.04

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).