Czerny 1949

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		68	0.33	74	0.00	76	0.02	84	0.02	62	0.04	84	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		25	0.54	34	0.00	15	0.13	15	0.67	14	0.57	20	0.62
Ashkenazy 1981		65	0.34	57	0.00	79	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02
Bacha 2000		59	0.39	80	0.00	59	0.07	49	0.07	19	0.40	46	0.17
Badura 1965		66	0.34	81	0.00	60	0.07	58	0.07	52	0.06	62	0.06
Barbosa 1983		16	0.59	23	0.00	19	0.17	17	0.66	21	0.48	27	0.56
Biret 1990		47	0.44	37	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	58	0.05	64	0.06
Blet 2003		75	0.31	68	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03
Block 1995		74	0.32	82	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	51	0.05	75	0.04
Blumental 1952		49	0.43	30	0.00	47	0.06	60	0.06	65	0.05	67	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		17	0.58	26	0.00	18	0.17	18	0.66	8	0.59	21	0.62
Brailowsky 1960		67	0.34	52	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	59	0.06	69	0.04
Bunin 1987		41	0.47	45	0.00	48	0.07	57	0.07	17	0.36	48	0.16
Bunin 1987b		46	0.45	65	0.00	51	0.07	53	0.07	25	0.32	51	0.15
Chiu 1999		64	0.35	69	0.00	70	0.05	65	0.05	69	0.04	70	0.04
Cohen 1997		72	0.32	75	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	47	0.06	77	0.04
Cortot 1951		36	0.48	15	0.00	28	0.13	33	0.44	1	0.76	24	0.58
Csalog 1996		76	0.31	58	0.00	62	0.05	62	0.05	52	0.05	66	0.05
Czerny 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1990		1	0.75	1	0.44	1	0.43	1	0.89	3	0.85	1	0.87
Duchoud 2007		80	0.29	76	0.00	72	0.03	73	0.03	49	0.06	74	0.04
Ezaki 2006		22	0.56	42	0.00	20	0.14	26	0.59	17	0.53	26	0.56
Falvay 1989		42	0.47	62	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.13	63	0.04	58	0.07
Farrell 1958		10	0.61	4	0.06	5	0.21	4	0.77	2	0.79	2	0.78
Ferenczy 1958		71	0.32	83	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	66	0.05	72	0.04
Fliere 1977		38	0.48	63	0.00	35	0.08	32	0.44	52	0.05	50	0.15
Fou 1978		44	0.46	77	0.00	36	0.08	37	0.35	36	0.22	39	0.28
Francois 1956		50	0.43	70	0.00	52	0.06	61	0.06	21	0.38	52	0.15
Friedman 1923		77	0.30	46	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.05	80	0.04
Friedman 1923b		78	0.30	59	0.00	67	0.05	64	0.05	47	0.07	63	0.06
Friedman 1930		82	0.26	36	0.00	80	0.02	83	0.02	85	0.03	88	0.02
Garcia 2007		61	0.38	53	0.00	54	0.06	59	0.06	25	0.42	47	0.16
Garcia 2007b		54	0.41	60	0.00	39	0.06	41	0.18	31	0.32	41	0.24
Gierzod 1998		7	0.63	18	0.00	11	0.12	9	0.70	16	0.52	22	0.60
Gornostaeva 1994		26	0.53	21	0.00	33	0.11	36	0.40	24	0.41	34	0.40
Groot 1988		73	0.32	66	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	64	0.05	79	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		4	0.67	9	0.01	4	0.29	5	0.77	10	0.64	8	0.70
Hatto 1993		28	0.52	25	0.00	25	0.17	22	0.63	11	0.58	23	0.60
Hatto 1997		30	0.51	35	0.00	26	0.23	24	0.61	12	0.54	25	0.57
Horowitz 1949		86	0.20	84	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.03	87	0.02
Indjic 1988		27	0.53	12	0.01	22	0.19	16	0.67	10	0.63	14	0.65
Kapell 1951		18	0.58	10	0.01	7	0.15	19	0.65	12	0.60	19	0.62
Kissin 1993		21	0.57	43	0.00	23	0.14	25	0.60	9	0.68	17	0.64
Kushner 1989		12	0.61	17	0.00	8	0.19	8	0.75	11	0.61	10	0.68
Luisada 1991		62	0.35	85	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	80	0.03	81	0.03
Lushtak 2004		32	0.50	40	0.00	32	0.12	30	0.50	36	0.31	35	0.39
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.70	2	0.22	2	0.44	3	0.79	2	0.72	3	0.75
Magaloff 1978		29	0.51	14	0.01	30	0.10	31	0.46	17	0.49	31	0.47
Magin 1975		31	0.51	38	0.00	34	0.10	34	0.43	25	0.40	33	0.41
Michalowski 1933		84	0.25	71	0.00	71	0.04	68	0.04	17	0.43	53	0.13
Milkina 1970		5	0.66	11	0.01	6	0.26	6	0.76	11	0.60	11	0.68
Mohovich 1999		51	0.43	78	0.00	49	0.07	56	0.07	61	0.04	68	0.05
Moravec 1969		40	0.47	41	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.16	43	0.15	49	0.15
Morozova 2008		19	0.57	44	0.00	24	0.17	23	0.63	4	0.65	18	0.64
Neighaus 1950		39	0.48	19	0.00	42	0.07	44	0.15	10	0.54	40	0.28
Niedzielski 1931		88	0.12	49	0.00	88	0.01	89	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01
Ohlsson 1999		45	0.45	31	0.00	50	0.07	54	0.07	41	0.18	54	0.11
Osinska 1989		14	0.60	86	0.00	17	0.16	12	0.69	18	0.59	16	0.64
Pachmann 1927		60	0.38	56	0.00	55	0.07	52	0.07	13	0.52	45	0.19
Paderewski 1930		63	0.35	72	0.00	57	0.09	46	0.09	5	0.60	42	0.23
Perlemuter 1992		69	0.33	22	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	70	0.04	82	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.40	87	0.00	56	0.07	51	0.07	20	0.49	44	0.19
Poblocka 1999		23	0.54	88	0.00	29	0.12	29	0.51	28	0.41	32	0.46
Rabcewiczowa 1932		48	0.44	29	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.16	63	0.04	56	0.08
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.33	89	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	50	0.06	65	0.05
Rangell 2001		13	0.60	32	0.00	16	0.15	20	0.64	2	0.77	7	0.70
Richter 1976		20	0.57	28	0.00	21	0.17	21	0.64	8	0.67	13	0.65
Rosen 1989		57	0.40	33	0.00	65	0.05	63	0.05	65	0.04	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		79	0.30	39	0.00	82	0.03	78	0.03	60	0.04	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.26	73	0.00	84	0.03	74	0.03	55	0.05	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.19	90	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	84	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.27	47	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	67	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.24	48	0.00	85	0.04	71	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.04
Rossi 2007		52	0.42	67	0.00	53	0.08	47	0.08	12	0.47	43	0.19
Rubinstein 1939		8	0.62	5	0.03	9	0.19	14	0.68	3	0.70	9	0.69
Rubinstein 1952		15	0.60	7	0.02	10	0.15	13	0.69	12	0.62	15	0.65
Rubinstein 1966		9	0.62	16	0.00	14	0.15	7	0.75	13	0.66	6	0.70
Schilhawsky 1960		11	0.61	13	0.01	13	0.14	11	0.69	2	0.76	5	0.72
Shebanova 2002		55	0.41	24	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	73	0.04	73	0.04
Smith 1975		33	0.50	8	0.01	27	0.14	27	0.51	9	0.59	28	0.55
Sokolov 2002		53	0.42	61	0.00	58	0.07	50	0.07	47	0.07	57	0.07
Sztompka 1959		6	0.64	6	0.03	12	0.14	10	0.70	3	0.78	4	0.74
Tomsic 1995		58	0.40	91	0.00	61	0.07	55	0.07	53	0.07	59	0.07
Uninsky 1932		43	0.46	20	0.00	37	0.10	35	0.41	14	0.62	30	0.50
Uninsky 1971		24	0.54	27	0.00	31	0.15	28	0.51	19	0.52	29	0.51
Wasowski 1980		34	0.49	50	0.00	38	0.08	38	0.34	26	0.41	36	0.37
Zak 1937		35	0.49	51	0.00	40	0.08	39	0.33	32	0.38	37	0.35
Zak 1951		37	0.48	54	0.00	41	0.12	40	0.32	30	0.29	38	0.30
Average		2	0.71	3	0.07	3	0.37	2	0.84	22	0.53	12	0.67
Random 1		90	0.02	55	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	7	0.49	60	0.07
Random 2		89	0.11	79	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	10	0.44	55	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.04	64	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	6	0.49	61	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).