Czerny 1990

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		71	0.38	76	0.00	72	0.05	60	0.05	43	0.13	71	0.08
Anderszewski 2003		14	0.62	7	0.02	4	0.21	8	0.76	2	0.74	9	0.75
Ashkenazy 1981		75	0.35	46	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	56	0.03	89	0.03
Bacha 2000		73	0.35	29	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	31	0.29	69	0.09
Badura 1965		56	0.42	21	0.00	59	0.06	54	0.06	9	0.48	50	0.17
Barbosa 1983		10	0.63	5	0.02	6	0.17	7	0.77	2	0.76	7	0.76
Biret 1990		35	0.54	64	0.00	29	0.13	33	0.47	22	0.44	38	0.45
Blet 2003		74	0.35	57	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	62	0.04	86	0.03
Block 1995		44	0.49	58	0.00	47	0.09	47	0.09	10	0.56	45	0.22
Blumental 1952		25	0.57	10	0.01	22	0.11	22	0.65	4	0.73	14	0.69
Boshniakovich 1969		34	0.54	65	0.00	25	0.11	26	0.59	12	0.51	31	0.55
Brailowsky 1960		43	0.51	31	0.00	40	0.10	40	0.25	20	0.53	40	0.36
Bunin 1987		66	0.39	66	0.00	64	0.05	64	0.05	40	0.11	72	0.07
Bunin 1987b		68	0.38	54	0.00	66	0.04	70	0.04	48	0.06	75	0.05
Chiu 1999		49	0.46	28	0.00	56	0.06	56	0.06	22	0.33	56	0.14
Cohen 1997		79	0.33	72	0.00	81	0.03	77	0.03	59	0.04	90	0.03
Cortot 1951		72	0.37	62	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	14	0.51	59	0.14
Csalog 1996		53	0.44	48	0.00	52	0.06	55	0.06	33	0.23	62	0.12
Czerny 1949		2	0.75	2	0.27	2	0.48	3	0.85	1	0.89	1	0.87
Czerny 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Duchoud 2007		87	0.21	82	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	69	0.04	87	0.03
Ezaki 2006		17	0.61	26	0.00	17	0.10	24	0.61	9	0.60	25	0.60
Falvay 1989		7	0.66	4	0.03	10	0.25	19	0.66	12	0.63	22	0.64
Farrell 1958		30	0.55	55	0.00	27	0.11	25	0.60	9	0.66	23	0.63
Ferenczy 1958		47	0.48	52	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	13	0.59	48	0.19
Fliere 1977		36	0.54	32	0.00	35	0.12	31	0.50	28	0.39	39	0.44
Fou 1978		23	0.57	33	0.00	30	0.12	27	0.58	10	0.52	29	0.55
Francois 1956		65	0.39	19	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	29	0.28	64	0.11
Friedman 1923		62	0.40	77	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	8	0.56	55	0.15
Friedman 1923b		64	0.40	67	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	7	0.58	51	0.17
Friedman 1930		58	0.42	50	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	22	0.42	58	0.14
Garcia 2007		83	0.29	47	0.00	82	0.03	74	0.03	61	0.05	82	0.04
Garcia 2007b		61	0.40	83	0.00	58	0.05	61	0.05	38	0.20	68	0.10
Gierzod 1998		6	0.66	14	0.00	9	0.18	11	0.74	5	0.63	16	0.68
Gornostaeva 1994		37	0.54	35	0.00	38	0.13	37	0.41	14	0.53	37	0.47
Groot 1988		57	0.42	42	0.00	41	0.09	43	0.19	18	0.36	44	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.74	3	0.11	3	0.53	2	0.86	2	0.84	2	0.85
Hatto 1993		21	0.58	84	0.00	16	0.14	21	0.66	7	0.69	18	0.67
Hatto 1997		26	0.57	78	0.00	21	0.13	20	0.66	7	0.68	17	0.67
Horowitz 1949		84	0.26	85	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	59	0.05	81	0.04
Indjic 1988		24	0.57	68	0.00	20	0.10	23	0.64	8	0.68	20	0.66
Kapell 1951		12	0.63	17	0.00	12	0.17	6	0.78	3	0.75	6	0.76
Kissin 1993		15	0.62	37	0.00	24	0.11	18	0.67	6	0.74	12	0.70
Kushner 1989		19	0.60	53	0.00	19	0.10	15	0.68	15	0.55	24	0.61
Luisada 1991		69	0.38	79	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	67	0.04	79	0.04
Lushtak 2004		27	0.56	8	0.01	32	0.09	34	0.47	17	0.52	34	0.49
Malcuzynski 1961		18	0.61	16	0.00	15	0.13	16	0.68	8	0.63	21	0.65
Magaloff 1978		38	0.53	34	0.00	37	0.10	39	0.40	8	0.59	33	0.49
Magin 1975		45	0.49	73	0.00	46	0.10	46	0.10	27	0.35	47	0.19
Michalowski 1933		88	0.18	80	0.00	87	0.03	87	0.03	66	0.03	85	0.03
Milkina 1970		9	0.64	9	0.01	7	0.16	12	0.71	5	0.66	15	0.68
Mohovich 1999		50	0.46	86	0.00	49	0.07	50	0.07	55	0.05	74	0.06
Moravec 1969		22	0.57	45	0.00	31	0.11	28	0.54	5	0.66	26	0.60
Morozova 2008		41	0.51	69	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.20	17	0.51	42	0.32
Neighaus 1950		48	0.47	38	0.00	55	0.05	63	0.05	7	0.57	52	0.17
Niedzielski 1931		85	0.24	63	0.00	85	0.03	79	0.03	74	0.04	84	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		46	0.48	70	0.00	50	0.09	48	0.09	35	0.29	53	0.16
Osinska 1989		5	0.66	13	0.00	8	0.17	5	0.78	7	0.70	10	0.74
Pachmann 1927		80	0.32	39	0.00	78	0.03	76	0.03	22	0.44	63	0.11
Paderewski 1930		86	0.24	59	0.00	79	0.03	73	0.03	20	0.36	65	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		78	0.33	87	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	53	0.05	83	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		77	0.33	88	0.00	74	0.03	84	0.03	44	0.11	73	0.06
Poblocka 1999		8	0.65	24	0.00	11	0.19	10	0.76	3	0.74	8	0.75
Rabcewiczowa 1932		55	0.43	43	0.00	51	0.06	53	0.06	40	0.14	70	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		67	0.39	56	0.00	53	0.06	51	0.06	30	0.31	57	0.14
Rangell 2001		39	0.52	25	0.00	43	0.08	41	0.22	9	0.59	41	0.36
Richter 1976		20	0.58	22	0.00	23	0.10	17	0.67	2	0.72	13	0.69
Rosen 1989		52	0.45	11	0.01	67	0.03	78	0.03	76	0.03	88	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		63	0.40	44	0.00	63	0.07	49	0.07	19	0.50	49	0.19
Rosenthal 1931		70	0.38	89	0.00	69	0.04	65	0.04	23	0.41	61	0.13
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.31	71	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	25	0.35	67	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		60	0.41	81	0.00	54	0.05	62	0.05	17	0.46	54	0.15
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.32	90	0.00	75	0.03	86	0.03	31	0.31	66	0.10
Rossi 2007		76	0.34	30	0.00	83	0.04	67	0.04	60	0.05	80	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		40	0.51	60	0.00	36	0.10	36	0.43	15	0.52	36	0.47
Rubinstein 1952		13	0.63	41	0.00	18	0.10	13	0.70	8	0.65	19	0.67
Rubinstein 1966		4	0.68	6	0.02	5	0.24	4	0.83	4	0.74	5	0.78
Schilhawsky 1960		33	0.54	18	0.00	26	0.14	29	0.52	4	0.68	27	0.59
Shebanova 2002		42	0.51	12	0.01	44	0.07	44	0.15	30	0.29	46	0.21
Smith 1975		31	0.55	23	0.00	33	0.10	30	0.51	4	0.67	28	0.58
Sokolov 2002		54	0.44	74	0.00	62	0.05	58	0.05	34	0.33	60	0.13
Sztompka 1959		11	0.63	20	0.00	13	0.14	14	0.69	2	0.79	11	0.74
Tomsic 1995		59	0.41	49	0.00	68	0.04	72	0.04	49	0.07	76	0.05
Uninsky 1932		51	0.46	40	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	6	0.67	43	0.31
Uninsky 1971		16	0.62	15	0.00	14	0.11	9	0.76	2	0.83	4	0.79
Wasowski 1980		29	0.55	51	0.00	28	0.10	35	0.46	14	0.53	32	0.49
Zak 1937		28	0.56	36	0.00	34	0.10	32	0.48	11	0.62	30	0.55
Zak 1951		32	0.55	27	0.00	39	0.13	38	0.40	14	0.58	35	0.48
Average		1	0.76	1	0.43	1	0.42	1	0.89	6	0.73	3	0.81
Random 1		91	-0.07	61	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	29	0.24	77	0.05
Random 2		89	0.01	75	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	56	0.04	91	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.07	91	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	30	0.21	78	0.05

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).