Biret 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		14	0.64	58	0.00	24	0.10	23	0.38	27	0.42	23	0.40
Anderszewski 2003		16	0.62	61	0.00	26	0.10	22	0.39	18	0.49	17	0.44
Ashkenazy 1981		29	0.59	19	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.12	30	0.26	43	0.18
Bacha 2000		45	0.56	35	0.00	64	0.04	58	0.04	24	0.32	65	0.11
Badura 1965		76	0.47	5	0.02	79	0.03	87	0.03	46	0.09	79	0.05
Barbosa 1983		51	0.54	29	0.00	18	0.08	29	0.28	18	0.52	24	0.38
Biret 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blet 2003		53	0.53	78	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	8	0.48	39	0.21
Block 1995		59	0.51	14	0.01	47	0.05	51	0.05	20	0.37	54	0.14
Blumental 1952		7	0.67	55	0.00	10	0.20	6	0.60	3	0.63	7	0.61
Boshniakovich 1969		43	0.57	37	0.00	29	0.08	28	0.28	33	0.32	33	0.30
Brailowsky 1960		37	0.58	70	0.00	59	0.05	49	0.05	15	0.54	44	0.16
Bunin 1987		87	0.34	79	0.00	87	0.04	76	0.04	47	0.05	86	0.04
Bunin 1987b		88	0.32	83	0.00	88	0.04	70	0.04	54	0.05	83	0.04
Chiu 1999		34	0.58	27	0.00	60	0.06	46	0.06	23	0.28	57	0.13
Cohen 1997		72	0.48	84	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	19	0.34	68	0.10
Cortot 1951		60	0.51	33	0.00	69	0.04	60	0.04	19	0.48	56	0.14
Csalog 1996		64	0.50	38	0.00	51	0.04	73	0.04	22	0.37	62	0.12
Czerny 1949		55	0.52	75	0.00	62	0.05	53	0.05	55	0.06	78	0.05
Czerny 1990		15	0.63	62	0.00	13	0.11	13	0.46	24	0.43	18	0.44
Duchoud 2007		84	0.41	90	0.00	84	0.04	72	0.04	55	0.05	85	0.04
Ezaki 2006		11	0.65	11	0.01	16	0.10	19	0.41	19	0.50	15	0.45
Falvay 1989		30	0.59	17	0.01	58	0.04	64	0.04	22	0.46	52	0.14
Farrell 1958		18	0.62	49	0.00	14	0.14	15	0.46	9	0.57	11	0.51
Ferenczy 1958		81	0.46	74	0.00	75	0.03	82	0.03	47	0.07	77	0.05
Fliere 1977		13	0.65	28	0.00	8	0.16	10	0.52	22	0.36	20	0.43
Fou 1978		4	0.68	7	0.01	9	0.13	8	0.57	4	0.61	9	0.59
Francois 1956		50	0.54	31	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.18	9	0.59	29	0.33
Friedman 1923		74	0.48	59	0.00	83	0.06	48	0.06	65	0.05	80	0.05
Friedman 1923b		78	0.47	80	0.00	82	0.04	63	0.04	63	0.05	87	0.04
Friedman 1930		61	0.50	30	0.00	71	0.04	61	0.04	44	0.18	72	0.08
Garcia 2007		49	0.54	16	0.01	46	0.05	54	0.05	13	0.51	48	0.16
Garcia 2007b		46	0.56	41	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.23	21	0.47	30	0.33
Gierzod 1998		19	0.62	44	0.00	22	0.12	16	0.44	38	0.22	31	0.31
Gornostaeva 1994		54	0.53	85	0.00	56	0.03	81	0.03	29	0.31	69	0.10
Groot 1988		24	0.60	51	0.00	17	0.08	21	0.40	5	0.49	19	0.44
Harasiewicz 1955		23	0.61	65	0.00	23	0.12	11	0.50	28	0.45	13	0.47
Hatto 1993		39	0.57	71	0.00	34	0.07	32	0.24	38	0.20	37	0.22
Hatto 1997		35	0.58	86	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.22	41	0.14	42	0.18
Horowitz 1949		73	0.48	69	0.00	76	0.03	83	0.03	41	0.24	70	0.08
Indjic 1988		31	0.58	52	0.00	33	0.06	31	0.24	39	0.19	38	0.21
Kapell 1951		36	0.58	72	0.00	27	0.08	27	0.29	36	0.22	34	0.25
Kissin 1993		41	0.57	81	0.00	49	0.04	62	0.04	51	0.06	75	0.05
Kushner 1989		5	0.68	12	0.01	4	0.21	4	0.64	5	0.65	4	0.64
Luisada 1991		32	0.58	8	0.01	40	0.05	39	0.19	34	0.22	40	0.20
Lushtak 2004		26	0.60	32	0.00	20	0.10	18	0.43	12	0.53	12	0.48
Malcuzynski 1961		65	0.50	53	0.00	31	0.05	43	0.11	25	0.28	41	0.18
Magaloff 1978		22	0.61	26	0.00	36	0.05	35	0.22	15	0.42	32	0.30
Magin 1975		58	0.51	43	0.00	53	0.04	77	0.04	69	0.04	82	0.04
Michalowski 1933		83	0.43	36	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	37	0.22	71	0.08
Milkina 1970		2	0.70	4	0.02	3	0.33	2	0.71	4	0.69	1	0.70
Mohovich 1999		9	0.66	18	0.00	11	0.19	9	0.56	5	0.66	8	0.61
Moravec 1969		48	0.55	66	0.00	57	0.03	79	0.03	18	0.49	60	0.12
Morozova 2008		52	0.53	22	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.11	38	0.23	47	0.16
Neighaus 1950		56	0.52	42	0.00	67	0.04	75	0.04	57	0.05	88	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		75	0.48	56	0.00	63	0.06	47	0.06	38	0.18	67	0.10
Ohlsson 1999		42	0.57	6	0.01	28	0.07	37	0.20	42	0.13	46	0.16
Osinska 1989		3	0.68	2	0.04	2	0.33	3	0.65	13	0.60	6	0.62
Pachmann 1927		85	0.40	63	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	61	0.04	89	0.03
Paderewski 1930		69	0.48	45	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	14	0.49	53	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		25	0.60	73	0.00	30	0.08	26	0.33	6	0.58	16	0.44
Pierdomenico 2008		82	0.45	87	0.00	65	0.05	55	0.05	9	0.51	45	0.16
Poblocka 1999		62	0.50	82	0.00	50	0.04	66	0.04	59	0.05	81	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		12	0.65	20	0.00	7	0.14	12	0.49	5	0.56	10	0.52
Rachmaninoff 1923		20	0.62	39	0.00	15	0.08	24	0.35	18	0.37	25	0.36
Rangell 2001		63	0.50	46	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	15	0.46	55	0.14
Richter 1976		86	0.39	64	0.00	85	0.05	50	0.05	71	0.04	84	0.04
Rosen 1989		38	0.57	60	0.00	42	0.07	38	0.19	35	0.26	36	0.22
Rosenthal 1930		68	0.50	54	0.00	72	0.05	57	0.05	18	0.51	49	0.16
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.46	15	0.01	77	0.03	88	0.03	21	0.42	66	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.50	10	0.01	73	0.05	56	0.05	14	0.54	50	0.16
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.46	76	0.00	78	0.04	71	0.04	29	0.37	64	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		70	0.48	88	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	11	0.60	59	0.13
Rossi 2007		47	0.55	21	0.00	52	0.04	78	0.04	9	0.52	51	0.14
Rubinstein 1939		33	0.58	89	0.00	48	0.04	65	0.04	22	0.37	61	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		44	0.56	67	0.00	39	0.05	33	0.23	17	0.48	28	0.33
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.65	50	0.00	19	0.08	20	0.41	16	0.51	14	0.46
Schilhawsky 1960		67	0.50	25	0.00	61	0.05	52	0.05	53	0.05	76	0.05
Shebanova 2002		17	0.62	40	0.00	21	0.10	17	0.43	35	0.26	27	0.33
Smith 1975		40	0.57	23	0.00	32	0.05	30	0.25	12	0.43	26	0.33
Sokolov 2002		27	0.60	34	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.14	16	0.42	35	0.24
Sztompka 1959		21	0.61	9	0.01	12	0.12	14	0.46	34	0.37	21	0.41
Tomsic 1995		77	0.47	77	0.00	70	0.04	59	0.04	26	0.43	58	0.13
Uninsky 1932		57	0.52	47	0.00	55	0.04	69	0.04	35	0.34	63	0.12
Uninsky 1971		71	0.48	24	0.00	54	0.04	74	0.04	47	0.08	73	0.06
Wasowski 1980		28	0.60	48	0.00	25	0.13	25	0.35	19	0.45	22	0.40
Zak 1937		6	0.67	13	0.01	6	0.17	7	0.60	5	0.67	5	0.63
Zak 1951		8	0.67	3	0.03	5	0.22	5	0.63	4	0.67	3	0.65
Average		1	0.78	1	0.71	1	0.70	1	0.84	19	0.52	2	0.66
Random 1		91	-0.12	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	66	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.02	57	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	33	0.20	74	0.06
Random 3		90	-0.07	68	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	56	0.04	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).