Boshniakovich 1969

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		55	0.42	33	0.00	63	0.03	76	0.03	29	0.31	66	0.10
Anderszewski 2003		19	0.51	14	0.01	8	0.15	9	0.56	13	0.57	9	0.56
Ashkenazy 1981		50	0.43	71	0.00	59	0.06	60	0.06	18	0.42	56	0.16
Bacha 2000		72	0.35	75	0.00	75	0.03	73	0.03	68	0.03	85	0.03
Badura 1965		58	0.41	54	0.00	54	0.08	46	0.08	18	0.43	47	0.19
Barbosa 1983		18	0.52	23	0.00	15	0.11	14	0.46	20	0.49	19	0.47
Biret 1990		23	0.50	50	0.00	20	0.08	17	0.42	23	0.43	24	0.42
Blet 2003		35	0.48	35	0.00	49	0.05	62	0.05	4	0.53	55	0.16
Block 1995		88	0.26	67	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.04	88	0.03
Blumental 1952		53	0.43	82	0.00	60	0.06	58	0.06	51	0.06	78	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Brailowsky 1960		73	0.35	86	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	58	0.06	81	0.04
Bunin 1987		43	0.46	17	0.01	44	0.05	44	0.11	10	0.52	41	0.24
Bunin 1987b		45	0.45	43	0.00	51	0.06	57	0.06	12	0.50	52	0.17
Chiu 1999		77	0.34	73	0.00	82	0.04	67	0.04	52	0.06	79	0.05
Cohen 1997		74	0.35	69	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	21	0.27	67	0.10
Cortot 1951		86	0.27	64	0.00	70	0.03	71	0.03	40	0.23	73	0.08
Csalog 1996		38	0.47	20	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	22	0.34	53	0.17
Czerny 1949		6	0.58	16	0.01	7	0.23	8	0.59	18	0.66	7	0.62
Czerny 1990		11	0.54	58	0.00	13	0.13	12	0.51	26	0.59	10	0.55
Duchoud 2007		76	0.34	12	0.01	84	0.03	72	0.03	41	0.23	71	0.08
Ezaki 2006		57	0.41	79	0.00	62	0.06	53	0.06	56	0.06	74	0.06
Falvay 1989		36	0.48	36	0.00	19	0.07	22	0.37	39	0.35	26	0.36
Farrell 1958		68	0.39	65	0.00	67	0.04	69	0.04	49	0.08	77	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.39	83	0.00	72	0.03	74	0.03	35	0.28	69	0.09
Fliere 1977		16	0.53	5	0.01	14	0.11	13	0.50	14	0.51	15	0.50
Fou 1978		26	0.50	30	0.00	36	0.06	31	0.27	21	0.40	31	0.33
Francois 1956		60	0.40	22	0.00	65	0.03	84	0.03	17	0.40	64	0.11
Friedman 1923		78	0.34	87	0.00	73	0.04	64	0.04	17	0.51	59	0.14
Friedman 1923b		75	0.34	84	0.00	74	0.06	51	0.06	19	0.46	54	0.17
Friedman 1930		70	0.38	31	0.00	64	0.03	79	0.03	33	0.25	68	0.09
Garcia 2007		63	0.40	29	0.00	53	0.07	48	0.07	18	0.49	46	0.19
Garcia 2007b		66	0.39	76	0.00	48	0.06	55	0.06	25	0.41	57	0.16
Gierzod 1998		2	0.64	2	0.08	3	0.39	3	0.72	11	0.60	3	0.66
Gornostaeva 1994		7	0.57	8	0.01	4	0.16	6	0.62	2	0.71	4	0.66
Groot 1988		64	0.40	19	0.00	61	0.07	47	0.07	44	0.10	72	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.57	27	0.00	10	0.14	11	0.53	18	0.57	11	0.55
Hatto 1993		40	0.46	24	0.00	32	0.08	34	0.25	31	0.33	35	0.29
Hatto 1997		41	0.46	47	0.00	28	0.07	29	0.29	32	0.35	33	0.32
Horowitz 1949		82	0.31	32	0.00	79	0.03	87	0.03	27	0.31	65	0.10
Indjic 1988		39	0.46	88	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.27	29	0.34	34	0.30
Kapell 1951		30	0.49	44	0.00	42	0.04	42	0.13	36	0.35	43	0.21
Kissin 1993		13	0.53	45	0.00	16	0.11	15	0.44	11	0.62	12	0.52
Kushner 1989		3	0.62	3	0.08	2	0.38	2	0.74	6	0.66	2	0.70
Luisada 1991		32	0.48	13	0.01	43	0.04	43	0.11	20	0.47	42	0.23
Lushtak 2004		52	0.43	74	0.00	46	0.05	63	0.05	38	0.26	63	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.59	6	0.01	6	0.18	5	0.65	9	0.62	5	0.63
Magaloff 1978		49	0.44	59	0.00	52	0.06	52	0.06	34	0.30	61	0.13
Magin 1975		10	0.56	15	0.01	11	0.12	16	0.43	8	0.61	13	0.51
Michalowski 1933		80	0.32	28	0.00	83	0.04	70	0.04	12	0.49	58	0.14
Milkina 1970		4	0.59	4	0.02	5	0.23	4	0.67	15	0.57	6	0.62
Mohovich 1999		46	0.45	72	0.00	33	0.06	35	0.24	34	0.26	40	0.25
Moravec 1969		37	0.47	7	0.01	29	0.06	28	0.29	25	0.39	30	0.34
Morozova 2008		17	0.53	46	0.00	17	0.07	18	0.41	5	0.62	16	0.50
Neighaus 1950		42	0.46	48	0.00	50	0.06	61	0.06	5	0.59	48	0.19
Niedzielski 1931		79	0.33	66	0.00	81	0.03	75	0.03	40	0.13	75	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		34	0.48	55	0.00	35	0.07	40	0.14	22	0.43	39	0.25
Osinska 1989		8	0.57	26	0.00	9	0.17	7	0.61	19	0.59	8	0.60
Pachmann 1927		48	0.44	34	0.00	58	0.06	54	0.06	1	0.66	45	0.20
Paderewski 1930		61	0.40	60	0.00	57	0.06	59	0.06	2	0.67	44	0.20
Perlemuter 1992		69	0.38	68	0.00	69	0.03	83	0.03	24	0.37	62	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		54	0.42	61	0.00	56	0.06	50	0.06	13	0.54	50	0.18
Poblocka 1999		51	0.43	39	0.00	30	0.08	38	0.19	42	0.17	49	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.40	25	0.00	55	0.07	49	0.07	53	0.05	76	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		84	0.30	89	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.03
Rangell 2001		47	0.44	42	0.00	47	0.06	56	0.06	15	0.52	51	0.18
Richter 1976		21	0.50	62	0.00	26	0.07	25	0.33	17	0.59	23	0.44
Rosen 1989		14	0.53	9	0.01	24	0.07	27	0.29	19	0.45	28	0.36
Rosenthal 1930		83	0.30	77	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	74	0.03	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.31	85	0.00	85	0.04	66	0.04	68	0.04	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.30	70	0.00	86	0.03	77	0.03	73	0.04	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.37	38	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	52	0.07	80	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.27	80	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	70	0.04	89	0.03
Rossi 2007		65	0.39	78	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	22	0.40	60	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		22	0.50	21	0.00	38	0.08	33	0.26	18	0.49	27	0.36
Rubinstein 1952		28	0.49	63	0.00	23	0.07	26	0.32	35	0.26	36	0.29
Rubinstein 1966		15	0.53	49	0.00	12	0.12	10	0.54	25	0.49	14	0.51
Schilhawsky 1960		20	0.51	18	0.00	34	0.06	37	0.21	19	0.49	32	0.32
Shebanova 2002		56	0.41	56	0.00	66	0.03	80	0.03	54	0.05	83	0.04
Smith 1975		29	0.49	11	0.01	18	0.08	23	0.35	8	0.60	20	0.46
Sokolov 2002		12	0.54	10	0.01	27	0.08	24	0.33	5	0.67	18	0.47
Sztompka 1959		33	0.48	40	0.00	39	0.08	36	0.22	20	0.55	29	0.35
Tomsic 1995		44	0.45	41	0.00	40	0.07	39	0.15	21	0.41	38	0.25
Uninsky 1932		62	0.40	51	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.13	15	0.61	37	0.28
Uninsky 1971		31	0.48	57	0.00	37	0.08	30	0.28	17	0.52	25	0.38
Wasowski 1980		25	0.50	37	0.00	21	0.07	20	0.38	12	0.54	22	0.45
Zak 1937		27	0.50	52	0.00	25	0.07	21	0.37	14	0.58	21	0.46
Zak 1951		24	0.50	81	0.00	22	0.08	19	0.39	15	0.58	17	0.48
Average		1	0.71	1	0.63	1	0.63	1	0.87	16	0.65	1	0.75
Random 1		91	-0.02	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	42	0.15	84	0.04
Random 2		90	0.00	53	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	40	0.11	87	0.03
Random 3		89	0.01	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	9	0.45	70	0.09

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).