Indjic 1988

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		51	0.43	21	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	23	0.40	58	0.13
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.53	22	0.00	15	0.08	21	0.49	26	0.45	22	0.47
Ashkenazy 1981		74	0.35	9	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.03	88	0.03
Bacha 2000		59	0.41	23	0.00	76	0.04	59	0.04	15	0.43	56	0.13
Badura 1965		46	0.45	3	0.00	50	0.05	49	0.05	10	0.47	51	0.15
Barbosa 1983		23	0.53	14	0.00	36	0.08	33	0.29	53	0.08	50	0.15
Biret 1990		13	0.55	24	0.00	12	0.08	11	0.57	14	0.53	15	0.55
Blet 2003		71	0.37	25	0.00	48	0.05	57	0.05	16	0.33	57	0.13
Block 1995		65	0.39	26	0.00	65	0.03	77	0.03	43	0.14	80	0.06
Blumental 1952		10	0.57	27	0.00	18	0.09	12	0.56	13	0.63	12	0.59
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.46	28	0.00	30	0.09	29	0.34	32	0.27	36	0.30
Brailowsky 1960		35	0.50	6	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.17	35	0.33	44	0.24
Bunin 1987		52	0.43	29	0.00	56	0.04	62	0.04	19	0.35	65	0.12
Bunin 1987b		55	0.42	30	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	23	0.37	60	0.12
Chiu 1999		60	0.41	31	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	39	0.18	75	0.08
Cohen 1997		73	0.36	32	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	7	0.53	47	0.16
Cortot 1951		75	0.35	33	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	17	0.47	55	0.14
Csalog 1996		41	0.47	34	0.00	26	0.10	34	0.29	16	0.41	32	0.34
Czerny 1949		19	0.53	4	0.00	10	0.15	10	0.63	16	0.67	8	0.65
Czerny 1990		9	0.57	35	0.00	8	0.15	8	0.68	23	0.64	7	0.66
Duchoud 2007		81	0.31	36	0.00	85	0.04	60	0.04	40	0.25	72	0.10
Ezaki 2006		17	0.54	37	0.00	28	0.09	30	0.33	34	0.25	37	0.29
Falvay 1989		12	0.56	15	0.00	21	0.10	18	0.51	27	0.47	19	0.49
Farrell 1958		53	0.43	38	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.16	28	0.39	43	0.25
Ferenczy 1958		26	0.51	39	0.00	46	0.08	46	0.08	11	0.63	45	0.22
Fliere 1977		15	0.55	40	0.00	27	0.09	24	0.44	32	0.37	26	0.40
Fou 1978		48	0.44	41	0.00	62	0.05	55	0.05	54	0.05	81	0.05
Francois 1956		78	0.33	42	0.00	79	0.04	64	0.04	36	0.23	73	0.10
Friedman 1923		63	0.39	43	0.00	55	0.04	58	0.04	10	0.55	53	0.15
Friedman 1923b		67	0.38	44	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	15	0.53	52	0.15
Friedman 1930		72	0.37	45	0.00	66	0.03	76	0.03	19	0.44	68	0.11
Garcia 2007		80	0.32	46	0.00	78	0.04	65	0.04	29	0.36	64	0.12
Garcia 2007b		57	0.41	5	0.00	33	0.08	36	0.27	17	0.51	31	0.37
Gierzod 1998		5	0.64	16	0.00	5	0.34	5	0.73	7	0.63	5	0.68
Gornostaeva 1994		54	0.42	17	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	63	0.04	86	0.04
Groot 1988		25	0.52	47	0.00	17	0.09	20	0.49	6	0.55	18	0.52
Harasiewicz 1955		6	0.60	48	0.00	9	0.15	7	0.69	13	0.62	9	0.65
Hatto 1993		2	0.98	1	0.55	1	0.55	2	0.99	1	1.00	2	0.99
Hatto 1997		1	0.98	2	0.44	2	0.97	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Horowitz 1949		82	0.30	49	0.00	83	0.04	75	0.04	24	0.36	62	0.12
Indjic 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kapell 1951		49	0.44	50	0.00	52	0.05	51	0.05	69	0.04	83	0.04
Kissin 1993		38	0.48	51	0.00	31	0.09	35	0.28	33	0.40	33	0.33
Kushner 1989		16	0.54	52	0.00	23	0.12	14	0.55	28	0.38	23	0.46
Luisada 1991		39	0.48	18	0.00	39	0.06	44	0.15	18	0.49	39	0.27
Lushtak 2004		14	0.55	53	0.00	20	0.08	16	0.53	14	0.55	16	0.54
Malcuzynski 1961		30	0.50	54	0.00	22	0.09	22	0.48	24	0.43	24	0.45
Magaloff 1978		11	0.56	7	0.00	13	0.09	17	0.52	3	0.66	10	0.59
Magin 1975		47	0.44	55	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	46	0.09	77	0.07
Michalowski 1933		88	0.14	56	0.00	88	0.03	87	0.03	68	0.03	87	0.03
Milkina 1970		7	0.59	57	0.00	7	0.13	9	0.64	22	0.47	14	0.55
Mohovich 1999		24	0.52	58	0.00	14	0.07	15	0.54	17	0.52	17	0.53
Moravec 1969		31	0.50	59	0.00	34	0.10	27	0.37	20	0.47	25	0.42
Morozova 2008		62	0.39	60	0.00	57	0.04	61	0.04	58	0.05	85	0.04
Neighaus 1950		79	0.33	61	0.00	63	0.03	80	0.03	22	0.41	71	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.29	62	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	38	0.13	79	0.06
Ohlsson 1999		43	0.47	11	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.16	20	0.44	41	0.27
Osinska 1989		4	0.67	63	0.00	4	0.33	4	0.79	8	0.69	4	0.74
Pachmann 1927		87	0.19	64	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	75	0.03	89	0.02
Paderewski 1930		86	0.21	65	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	18	0.38	66	0.11
Perlemuter 1992		76	0.35	66	0.00	58	0.05	54	0.05	19	0.41	54	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.38	8	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	18	0.50	46	0.16
Poblocka 1999		22	0.53	67	0.00	24	0.11	23	0.47	18	0.49	21	0.48
Rabcewiczowa 1932		50	0.44	68	0.00	35	0.07	38	0.23	29	0.31	40	0.27
Rachmaninoff 1923		42	0.47	69	0.00	19	0.08	28	0.34	18	0.47	27	0.40
Rangell 2001		70	0.38	19	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	34	0.24	76	0.08
Richter 1976		77	0.34	70	0.00	82	0.04	74	0.04	62	0.04	84	0.04
Rosen 1989		20	0.53	20	0.00	25	0.10	25	0.42	9	0.58	20	0.49
Rosenthal 1930		56	0.41	12	0.00	68	0.03	81	0.03	28	0.39	69	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		61	0.40	71	0.00	69	0.03	78	0.03	22	0.41	67	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.39	72	0.00	75	0.04	73	0.04	20	0.42	59	0.13
Rosenthal 1931c		45	0.45	73	0.00	53	0.05	52	0.05	16	0.50	48	0.16
Rosenthal 1931d		64	0.39	74	0.00	72	0.03	82	0.03	23	0.39	70	0.11
Rossi 2007		84	0.26	75	0.00	86	0.04	63	0.04	69	0.04	82	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		36	0.49	76	0.00	32	0.08	31	0.30	21	0.45	30	0.37
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.49	77	0.00	29	0.07	26	0.38	27	0.39	29	0.38
Rubinstein 1966		8	0.59	78	0.00	6	0.18	6	0.70	16	0.65	6	0.67
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.51	79	0.00	37	0.08	32	0.29	17	0.50	28	0.38
Shebanova 2002		33	0.50	80	0.00	16	0.09	19	0.50	5	0.62	13	0.56
Smith 1975		29	0.51	81	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.15	20	0.45	42	0.26
Sokolov 2002		40	0.47	82	0.00	40	0.08	40	0.19	15	0.50	35	0.31
Sztompka 1959		68	0.38	83	0.00	38	0.07	39	0.20	30	0.41	38	0.29
Tomsic 1995		58	0.41	84	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	38	0.19	74	0.09
Uninsky 1932		85	0.26	85	0.00	74	0.03	83	0.03	39	0.16	78	0.07
Uninsky 1971		18	0.54	86	0.00	11	0.07	13	0.55	7	0.63	11	0.59
Wasowski 1980		34	0.50	13	0.00	41	0.08	37	0.25	24	0.42	34	0.32
Zak 1937		27	0.51	87	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	33	0.38	49	0.15
Zak 1951		32	0.50	88	0.00	49	0.05	48	0.05	31	0.29	61	0.12
Average		3	0.74	10	0.00	3	0.71	3	0.88	13	0.68	3	0.77
Random 1		90	-0.09	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	66	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		89	0.06	90	0.00	89	0.03	88	0.03	5	0.49	63	0.12
Random 3		91	-0.09	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	78	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).