Friedman 1923b

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		39	0.32	52	0.00	38	0.06	38	0.20	30	0.26	13	0.23
Anderszewski 2003		36	0.33	38	0.00	49	0.07	46	0.07	77	0.03	55	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		23	0.36	17	0.00	11	0.10	17	0.51	8	0.48	5	0.49
Bacha 2000		67	0.25	68	0.00	72	0.06	48	0.06	59	0.04	50	0.05
Badura 1965		5	0.44	13	0.00	6	0.22	8	0.57	8	0.48	4	0.52
Barbosa 1983		40	0.32	43	0.00	44	0.07	40	0.18	73	0.04	42	0.08
Biret 1990		42	0.31	53	0.00	39	0.07	35	0.26	86	0.02	46	0.07
Blet 2003		51	0.30	10	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	59	0.05	65	0.04
Block 1995		35	0.33	54	0.00	26	0.07	26	0.38	47	0.07	19	0.16
Blumental 1952		20	0.36	32	0.00	31	0.10	28	0.36	53	0.06	26	0.15
Boshniakovich 1969		30	0.34	69	0.00	19	0.08	19	0.46	51	0.06	17	0.17
Brailowsky 1960		21	0.36	28	0.00	30	0.07	29	0.36	51	0.06	20	0.15
Bunin 1987		76	0.20	55	0.00	57	0.05	61	0.05	86	0.03	69	0.04
Bunin 1987b		83	0.16	70	0.00	75	0.05	62	0.05	88	0.03	63	0.04
Chiu 1999		69	0.24	56	0.00	77	0.04	69	0.04	73	0.03	75	0.03
Cohen 1997		77	0.20	24	0.00	60	0.05	60	0.05	83	0.03	68	0.04
Cortot 1951		88	0.09	71	0.00	88	0.03	81	0.03	88	0.02	89	0.02
Csalog 1996		75	0.21	72	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	87	0.02	78	0.03
Czerny 1949		49	0.30	44	0.00	48	0.07	47	0.07	64	0.05	48	0.06
Czerny 1990		10	0.40	57	0.00	12	0.10	7	0.58	59	0.05	18	0.17
Duchoud 2007		79	0.20	25	0.00	76	0.04	66	0.04	61	0.05	67	0.04
Ezaki 2006		63	0.25	73	0.00	74	0.05	64	0.05	75	0.04	58	0.04
Falvay 1989		24	0.35	29	0.00	27	0.07	30	0.27	74	0.04	34	0.10
Farrell 1958		71	0.23	74	0.00	73	0.04	74	0.04	72	0.04	62	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		43	0.31	33	0.00	36	0.06	43	0.15	56	0.06	40	0.09
Fliere 1977		45	0.30	75	0.00	63	0.04	77	0.04	86	0.03	73	0.03
Fou 1978		12	0.39	11	0.00	17	0.15	14	0.53	66	0.04	22	0.15
Francois 1956		37	0.32	76	0.00	9	0.14	22	0.43	20	0.38	7	0.40
Friedman 1923		1	0.95	1	0.98	1	0.97	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Friedman 1923b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1930		2	0.63	6	0.00	2	0.64	2	0.83	2	0.82	2	0.82
Garcia 2007		87	0.15	34	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.02	88	0.02
Garcia 2007b		59	0.27	35	0.00	70	0.05	57	0.05	60	0.05	57	0.05
Gierzod 1998		32	0.34	26	0.00	47	0.06	52	0.06	86	0.03	66	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		19	0.37	58	0.00	16	0.13	16	0.52	47	0.07	14	0.19
Groot 1988		65	0.25	45	0.00	55	0.04	73	0.04	79	0.03	82	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		16	0.38	77	0.00	25	0.07	23	0.40	85	0.03	32	0.11
Hatto 1993		14	0.38	46	0.00	10	0.14	10	0.54	46	0.06	15	0.18
Hatto 1997		13	0.39	78	0.00	15	0.16	12	0.54	66	0.04	25	0.15
Horowitz 1949		58	0.27	59	0.00	62	0.05	56	0.05	31	0.26	30	0.11
Indjic 1988		15	0.38	79	0.00	14	0.10	15	0.53	71	0.04	23	0.15
Kapell 1951		78	0.20	80	0.00	81	0.02	89	0.02	86	0.02	84	0.02
Kissin 1993		52	0.29	60	0.00	50	0.06	51	0.06	66	0.05	53	0.05
Kushner 1989		29	0.35	22	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.26	67	0.04	36	0.10
Luisada 1991		27	0.35	30	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.45	36	0.21	9	0.31
Lushtak 2004		22	0.36	81	0.00	29	0.06	25	0.39	81	0.03	31	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		60	0.27	47	0.00	64	0.04	76	0.04	84	0.02	76	0.03
Magaloff 1978		46	0.30	82	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	71	0.03	52	0.05
Magin 1975		44	0.31	5	0.00	53	0.04	70	0.04	71	0.04	61	0.04
Michalowski 1933		81	0.18	48	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	58	0.03	86	0.02
Milkina 1970		17	0.38	15	0.00	20	0.09	18	0.47	78	0.04	28	0.14
Mohovich 1999		33	0.33	49	0.00	37	0.07	37	0.20	70	0.04	41	0.09
Moravec 1969		68	0.24	31	0.00	54	0.04	68	0.04	78	0.03	72	0.03
Morozova 2008		70	0.24	18	0.00	52	0.04	67	0.04	85	0.03	80	0.03
Neighaus 1950		4	0.48	19	0.00	3	0.44	11	0.54	6	0.59	3	0.56
Niedzielski 1931		56	0.28	27	0.00	24	0.08	39	0.19	61	0.05	35	0.10
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.35	8	0.00	42	0.11	31	0.27	63	0.04	37	0.10
Osinska 1989		26	0.35	20	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.27	69	0.04	33	0.10
Pachmann 1927		72	0.23	3	0.00	78	0.04	71	0.04	65	0.03	77	0.03
Paderewski 1930		74	0.21	83	0.00	56	0.04	79	0.04	43	0.13	45	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		73	0.23	36	0.00	61	0.05	53	0.05	62	0.04	59	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		84	0.16	84	0.00	85	0.03	85	0.03	85	0.02	83	0.02
Poblocka 1999		54	0.28	50	0.00	71	0.05	54	0.05	73	0.05	51	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		64	0.25	39	0.00	40	0.07	42	0.16	83	0.03	43	0.07
Rachmaninoff 1923		34	0.33	40	0.00	23	0.10	24	0.40	35	0.24	10	0.31
Rangell 2001		62	0.26	41	0.00	69	0.05	58	0.05	80	0.04	70	0.04
Richter 1976		66	0.25	2	0.00	34	0.06	44	0.11	54	0.04	44	0.07
Rosen 1989		25	0.35	51	0.00	41	0.08	33	0.27	66	0.04	38	0.10
Rosenthal 1930		47	0.30	7	0.00	68	0.05	55	0.05	50	0.05	56	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		55	0.28	85	0.00	65	0.04	75	0.04	62	0.04	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		53	0.28	61	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	53	0.05	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		41	0.32	14	0.00	46	0.06	50	0.06	54	0.07	49	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		57	0.27	62	0.00	67	0.05	59	0.05	45	0.10	47	0.07
Rossi 2007		82	0.18	9	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.03	74	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		18	0.38	23	0.00	21	0.11	21	0.44	51	0.05	21	0.15
Rubinstein 1952		9	0.41	63	0.00	5	0.21	4	0.62	45	0.12	11	0.27
Rubinstein 1966		7	0.42	16	0.00	13	0.10	9	0.56	59	0.05	16	0.17
Schilhawsky 1960		80	0.19	86	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03	79	0.03
Shebanova 2002		50	0.30	64	0.00	28	0.06	34	0.27	57	0.05	29	0.12
Smith 1975		6	0.43	21	0.00	7	0.11	6	0.58	28	0.35	6	0.45
Sokolov 2002		61	0.27	37	0.00	59	0.05	63	0.05	77	0.03	60	0.04
Sztompka 1959		38	0.32	65	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.18	55	0.05	39	0.09
Tomsic 1995		86	0.16	87	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	89	0.02	85	0.02
Uninsky 1932		85	0.16	88	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	86	0.02	87	0.02
Uninsky 1971		48	0.30	89	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	71	0.04	54	0.05
Wasowski 1980		31	0.34	90	0.00	32	0.09	27	0.37	64	0.05	27	0.14
Zak 1937		8	0.41	66	0.00	8	0.12	5	0.60	37	0.24	8	0.38
Zak 1951		11	0.40	42	0.00	18	0.16	13	0.53	41	0.10	12	0.23
Average		3	0.50	4	0.00	4	0.48	3	0.77	80	0.03	24	0.15
Random 1		90	-0.09	91	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	53	0.04	81	0.03
Random 2		89	-0.08	12	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.01	90	0.01
Random 3		91	-0.13	67	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.01	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).