Ashkenazy 1981

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