Rabcewiczowa 1932

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		77	0.31	68	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	60	0.04	89	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		58	0.38	78	0.00	47	0.05	55	0.05	49	0.07	72	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		76	0.32	63	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	26	0.27	59	0.10
Bacha 2000		68	0.35	64	0.00	72	0.04	70	0.04	41	0.18	66	0.08
Badura 1965		74	0.33	21	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	43	0.10	73	0.06
Barbosa 1983		24	0.46	27	0.00	9	0.14	9	0.48	28	0.38	17	0.43
Biret 1990		5	0.51	4	0.02	3	0.27	6	0.54	16	0.50	6	0.52
Blet 2003		88	0.23	85	0.00	87	0.03	78	0.03	66	0.03	88	0.03
Block 1995		48	0.41	18	0.01	28	0.09	26	0.32	15	0.50	20	0.40
Blumental 1952		12	0.48	29	0.00	10	0.10	12	0.45	27	0.47	13	0.46
Boshniakovich 1969		52	0.40	30	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	49	0.07	74	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		64	0.37	53	0.00	50	0.06	46	0.06	42	0.19	52	0.11
Bunin 1987		35	0.44	72	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	21	0.32	46	0.13
Bunin 1987b		43	0.42	51	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	28	0.28	49	0.12
Chiu 1999		54	0.40	43	0.00	42	0.05	43	0.11	18	0.38	40	0.20
Cohen 1997		69	0.34	65	0.00	74	0.03	76	0.03	26	0.21	69	0.08
Cortot 1951		80	0.30	79	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	26	0.38	55	0.11
Csalog 1996		59	0.38	47	0.00	58	0.06	47	0.06	50	0.05	80	0.05
Czerny 1949		32	0.44	42	0.00	52	0.04	63	0.04	43	0.16	67	0.08
Czerny 1990		41	0.43	58	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.14	53	0.06	65	0.09
Duchoud 2007		71	0.33	54	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	22	0.45	51	0.12
Ezaki 2006		20	0.46	34	0.00	30	0.06	27	0.32	43	0.17	38	0.23
Falvay 1989		30	0.44	15	0.01	27	0.08	23	0.36	42	0.19	33	0.26
Farrell 1958		11	0.49	59	0.00	19	0.07	17	0.41	17	0.56	9	0.48
Ferenczy 1958		75	0.33	37	0.00	77	0.03	73	0.03	52	0.06	84	0.04
Fliere 1977		3	0.52	10	0.01	2	0.28	4	0.57	12	0.52	4	0.54
Fou 1978		40	0.43	80	0.00	34	0.07	31	0.28	30	0.27	31	0.27
Francois 1956		81	0.29	66	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	28	0.29	56	0.11
Friedman 1923		85	0.26	89	0.00	83	0.03	80	0.03	40	0.13	75	0.06
Friedman 1923b		86	0.25	67	0.00	79	0.03	83	0.03	42	0.16	70	0.07
Friedman 1930		70	0.34	60	0.00	62	0.04	66	0.04	26	0.35	50	0.12
Garcia 2007		34	0.44	33	0.00	53	0.05	52	0.05	13	0.51	43	0.16
Garcia 2007b		15	0.48	36	0.00	24	0.08	24	0.34	10	0.59	15	0.45
Gierzod 1998		9	0.50	23	0.00	14	0.08	15	0.43	41	0.21	28	0.30
Gornostaeva 1994		10	0.49	48	0.00	21	0.08	19	0.41	19	0.45	18	0.43
Groot 1988		55	0.39	44	0.00	26	0.09	33	0.24	26	0.28	34	0.26
Harasiewicz 1955		18	0.47	7	0.01	13	0.08	10	0.48	38	0.34	21	0.40
Hatto 1993		26	0.45	38	0.00	20	0.07	21	0.39	32	0.31	23	0.35
Hatto 1997		38	0.43	61	0.00	32	0.06	32	0.27	38	0.22	36	0.24
Horowitz 1949		84	0.26	81	0.00	88	0.03	72	0.03	61	0.05	82	0.04
Indjic 1988		36	0.44	13	0.01	29	0.06	29	0.31	38	0.23	32	0.27
Kapell 1951		2	0.57	6	0.02	4	0.20	2	0.59	16	0.58	2	0.58
Kissin 1993		78	0.31	69	0.00	78	0.02	84	0.02	65	0.05	87	0.03
Kushner 1989		6	0.51	25	0.00	5	0.20	3	0.59	27	0.41	8	0.49
Luisada 1991		79	0.30	31	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	72	0.04	85	0.03
Lushtak 2004		14	0.48	46	0.00	8	0.11	8	0.50	21	0.50	7	0.50
Malcuzynski 1961		4	0.52	26	0.00	11	0.11	7	0.51	27	0.42	12	0.46
Magaloff 1978		19	0.47	39	0.00	35	0.06	35	0.24	30	0.36	29	0.29
Magin 1975		23	0.46	20	0.01	25	0.09	16	0.41	23	0.44	19	0.42
Michalowski 1933		87	0.24	17	0.01	86	0.02	86	0.02	18	0.43	62	0.09
Milkina 1970		27	0.45	55	0.00	37	0.08	28	0.31	46	0.08	42	0.16
Mohovich 1999		49	0.40	73	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.12	52	0.05	68	0.08
Moravec 1969		7	0.51	28	0.00	17	0.08	14	0.44	17	0.50	10	0.47
Morozova 2008		39	0.43	35	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	33	0.25	58	0.10
Neighaus 1950		61	0.37	19	0.01	67	0.03	74	0.03	17	0.43	54	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.27	62	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	65	0.05	86	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		72	0.33	82	0.00	73	0.03	75	0.03	57	0.05	83	0.04
Osinska 1989		31	0.44	56	0.00	38	0.07	36	0.20	47	0.07	48	0.12
Pachmann 1927		51	0.40	2	0.05	12	0.09	39	0.15	7	0.59	25	0.30
Paderewski 1930		82	0.28	14	0.01	80	0.02	88	0.02	34	0.18	71	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		65	0.37	11	0.01	64	0.04	62	0.04	20	0.41	45	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		67	0.35	75	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	36	0.28	60	0.09
Poblocka 1999		22	0.46	49	0.00	36	0.08	34	0.24	41	0.20	39	0.22
Rabcewiczowa 1932		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.41	3	0.04	7	0.14	18	0.41	14	0.51	11	0.46
Rangell 2001		42	0.43	22	0.00	59	0.06	48	0.06	33	0.28	47	0.13
Richter 1976		60	0.38	86	0.00	66	0.05	54	0.05	48	0.06	79	0.05
Rosen 1989		45	0.42	83	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	27	0.34	41	0.18
Rosenthal 1930		21	0.46	32	0.00	18	0.08	25	0.34	13	0.56	16	0.44
Rosenthal 1931		28	0.45	9	0.01	39	0.07	38	0.15	8	0.60	26	0.30
Rosenthal 1931b		56	0.39	40	0.00	49	0.05	50	0.05	12	0.53	44	0.16
Rosenthal 1931c		13	0.48	12	0.01	16	0.08	13	0.44	9	0.63	5	0.53
Rosenthal 1931d		33	0.44	45	0.00	41	0.04	41	0.13	8	0.60	30	0.28
Rossi 2007		63	0.37	16	0.01	70	0.04	68	0.04	30	0.27	57	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		8	0.51	5	0.02	6	0.16	5	0.56	9	0.58	3	0.57
Rubinstein 1952		16	0.48	74	0.00	15	0.11	11	0.45	31	0.33	22	0.39
Rubinstein 1966		17	0.47	50	0.00	23	0.07	20	0.40	41	0.23	27	0.30
Schilhawsky 1960		25	0.46	8	0.01	22	0.07	22	0.36	10	0.56	14	0.45
Shebanova 2002		29	0.45	57	0.00	31	0.06	30	0.29	20	0.41	24	0.34
Smith 1975		66	0.36	76	0.00	57	0.05	51	0.05	39	0.24	53	0.11
Sokolov 2002		73	0.33	77	0.00	68	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.05	81	0.04
Sztompka 1959		50	0.40	52	0.00	61	0.04	67	0.04	39	0.22	61	0.09
Tomsic 1995		57	0.39	90	0.00	69	0.05	58	0.05	73	0.05	78	0.05
Uninsky 1932		44	0.42	24	0.00	43	0.04	44	0.11	23	0.51	37	0.24
Uninsky 1971		46	0.41	70	0.00	48	0.05	59	0.05	44	0.16	63	0.09
Wasowski 1980		37	0.44	41	0.00	33	0.07	37	0.17	28	0.38	35	0.25
Zak 1937		62	0.37	91	0.00	63	0.05	57	0.05	56	0.05	76	0.05
Zak 1951		53	0.40	87	0.00	56	0.06	49	0.06	63	0.04	77	0.05
Average		1	0.64	1	0.66	1	0.65	1	0.80	23	0.51	1	0.64
Random 1		90	-0.01	88	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	17	0.39	64	0.09
Random 2		89	0.02	71	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	71	0.03	90	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.06	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	47	0.05	91	0.02

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).