Block 1995

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		77	0.24	60	0.00	67	0.05	57	0.05	70	0.04	75	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		6	0.56	9	0.01	7	0.17	6	0.68	27	0.45	6	0.55
Ashkenazy 1981		72	0.27	68	0.00	78	0.04	74	0.04	61	0.03	83	0.03
Bacha 2000		69	0.28	36	0.00	66	0.05	62	0.05	76	0.03	66	0.04
Badura 1965		55	0.33	22	0.00	64	0.06	49	0.06	55	0.06	60	0.06
Barbosa 1983		8	0.52	10	0.01	9	0.17	9	0.62	29	0.35	11	0.47
Biret 1990		16	0.47	38	0.00	24	0.10	22	0.44	47	0.06	35	0.16
Blet 2003		59	0.32	16	0.01	55	0.05	53	0.05	41	0.14	50	0.08
Block 1995		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blumental 1952		14	0.49	12	0.01	8	0.18	12	0.54	25	0.47	10	0.50
Boshniakovich 1969		74	0.26	75	0.00	68	0.04	80	0.04	78	0.03	82	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		5	0.56	6	0.02	4	0.22	8	0.65	12	0.62	3	0.63
Bunin 1987		64	0.30	52	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	66	0.04	77	0.04
Bunin 1987b		70	0.28	76	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	70	0.04	80	0.03
Chiu 1999		44	0.37	33	0.00	39	0.06	41	0.15	25	0.30	27	0.21
Cohen 1997		82	0.18	69	0.00	84	0.04	65	0.04	74	0.03	84	0.03
Cortot 1951		66	0.29	19	0.00	20	0.10	37	0.20	42	0.21	28	0.20
Csalog 1996		31	0.42	37	0.00	15	0.10	23	0.43	24	0.34	18	0.38
Czerny 1949		61	0.32	82	0.00	65	0.05	51	0.05	72	0.04	74	0.04
Czerny 1990		12	0.49	39	0.00	22	0.13	10	0.56	47	0.09	26	0.22
Duchoud 2007		84	0.15	70	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	50	0.06	76	0.04
Ezaki 2006		3	0.59	3	0.10	5	0.25	5	0.71	25	0.47	5	0.58
Falvay 1989		2	0.62	1	0.37	1	0.37	1	0.83	4	0.73	1	0.78
Farrell 1958		52	0.35	61	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	51	0.06	62	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		23	0.44	11	0.01	14	0.11	16	0.49	14	0.57	9	0.53
Fliere 1977		17	0.46	17	0.00	18	0.10	19	0.46	50	0.06	30	0.17
Fou 1978		9	0.51	14	0.01	10	0.19	7	0.66	17	0.44	7	0.54
Francois 1956		85	0.14	66	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		58	0.32	83	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	31	0.30	45	0.12
Friedman 1923b		57	0.33	67	0.00	52	0.07	47	0.07	26	0.38	34	0.16
Friedman 1930		76	0.24	84	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.05	73	0.04
Garcia 2007		78	0.24	77	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	44	0.11	59	0.06
Garcia 2007b		79	0.20	62	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Gierzod 1998		40	0.38	46	0.00	33	0.07	31	0.28	60	0.05	40	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.42	24	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.38	34	0.27	21	0.32
Groot 1988		46	0.36	27	0.00	43	0.06	44	0.14	52	0.05	51	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		18	0.46	13	0.01	28	0.07	26	0.35	65	0.04	44	0.12
Hatto 1993		36	0.39	31	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.17	73	0.04	52	0.08
Hatto 1997		42	0.38	28	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	72	0.04	65	0.05
Horowitz 1949		75	0.25	53	0.00	72	0.04	77	0.04	40	0.14	54	0.07
Indjic 1988		38	0.39	47	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.14	77	0.03	58	0.06
Kapell 1951		13	0.49	7	0.02	11	0.20	17	0.49	30	0.41	12	0.45
Kissin 1993		21	0.45	51	0.00	35	0.09	28	0.33	37	0.35	20	0.34
Kushner 1989		41	0.38	40	0.00	44	0.06	42	0.15	64	0.05	48	0.09
Luisada 1991		45	0.36	78	0.00	63	0.05	60	0.05	61	0.04	67	0.04
Lushtak 2004		10	0.49	79	0.00	23	0.13	13	0.51	43	0.18	23	0.30
Malcuzynski 1961		34	0.41	54	0.00	29	0.06	30	0.31	59	0.05	38	0.12
Magaloff 1978		35	0.39	32	0.00	58	0.04	67	0.04	77	0.03	79	0.03
Magin 1975		54	0.34	21	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	85	0.03	70	0.04
Michalowski 1933		87	0.05	85	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02	87	0.02
Milkina 1970		39	0.38	86	0.00	51	0.06	50	0.06	76	0.04	63	0.05
Mohovich 1999		7	0.55	25	0.00	6	0.25	4	0.72	14	0.56	4	0.63
Moravec 1969		15	0.49	29	0.00	16	0.10	18	0.48	24	0.40	13	0.44
Morozova 2008		62	0.31	73	0.00	69	0.04	79	0.04	73	0.04	72	0.04
Neighaus 1950		71	0.27	8	0.01	49	0.05	59	0.05	33	0.23	46	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.32	55	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	15	0.41	33	0.16
Ohlsson 1999		65	0.30	57	0.00	53	0.05	61	0.05	54	0.05	64	0.05
Osinska 1989		33	0.41	41	0.00	36	0.08	34	0.26	61	0.06	37	0.12
Pachmann 1927		83	0.17	58	0.00	83	0.04	71	0.04	57	0.05	71	0.04
Paderewski 1930		90	-0.07	87	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	88	0.02	90	0.01
Perlemuter 1992		81	0.18	48	0.00	81	0.04	73	0.04	57	0.04	68	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		86	0.07	80	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02
Poblocka 1999		1	0.64	2	0.33	2	0.40	2	0.79	4	0.72	2	0.75
Rabcewiczowa 1932		32	0.41	4	0.03	13	0.12	15	0.50	26	0.32	16	0.40
Rachmaninoff 1923		11	0.49	63	0.00	19	0.11	11	0.55	11	0.52	8	0.53
Rangell 2001		47	0.36	49	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	47	0.08	61	0.06
Richter 1976		27	0.42	64	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.15	44	0.14	36	0.14
Rosen 1989		50	0.36	30	0.00	31	0.07	35	0.26	38	0.25	25	0.25
Rosenthal 1930		53	0.34	74	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	29	0.38	41	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		37	0.39	15	0.01	30	0.07	32	0.27	10	0.53	17	0.38
Rosenthal 1931b		73	0.27	26	0.00	74	0.04	66	0.04	45	0.13	56	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		48	0.36	43	0.00	50	0.05	56	0.05	41	0.17	49	0.09
Rosenthal 1931d		63	0.31	56	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	27	0.35	43	0.12
Rossi 2007		80	0.19	71	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	44	0.10	57	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		51	0.35	42	0.00	38	0.06	45	0.13	67	0.04	53	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		22	0.45	50	0.00	21	0.11	14	0.50	51	0.06	32	0.17
Rubinstein 1966		20	0.45	34	0.00	26	0.09	24	0.40	50	0.07	31	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		68	0.29	72	0.00	73	0.04	76	0.04	81	0.03	81	0.03
Shebanova 2002		25	0.43	65	0.00	12	0.12	21	0.45	22	0.41	14	0.43
Smith 1975		49	0.36	88	0.00	60	0.04	75	0.04	60	0.05	69	0.04
Sokolov 2002		67	0.29	35	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	72	0.03	78	0.03
Sztompka 1959		43	0.37	44	0.00	32	0.08	33	0.26	35	0.31	24	0.28
Tomsic 1995		29	0.42	23	0.00	17	0.10	29	0.33	22	0.38	19	0.35
Uninsky 1932		56	0.33	20	0.00	59	0.04	69	0.04	44	0.11	55	0.07
Uninsky 1971		30	0.42	18	0.00	37	0.08	36	0.23	49	0.06	39	0.12
Wasowski 1980		26	0.43	59	0.00	25	0.10	20	0.46	33	0.34	15	0.40
Zak 1937		19	0.45	89	0.00	34	0.07	27	0.34	35	0.29	22	0.31
Zak 1951		24	0.43	90	0.00	40	0.08	38	0.20	56	0.05	47	0.10
Average		4	0.57	5	0.03	3	0.29	3	0.74	57	0.05	29	0.19
Random 1		88	0.03	45	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	4	0.52	42	0.12
Random 2		89	0.01	81	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	57	0.04	88	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.11	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.02	91	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).