Boshniakovich 1969

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		13	0.67	69	0.00	22	0.09	24	0.47	28	0.40	29	0.43
Anderszewski 2003		11	0.68	19	0.00	17	0.11	18	0.54	11	0.56	17	0.55
Ashkenazy 1981		45	0.57	58	0.00	41	0.08	39	0.20	24	0.31	40	0.25
Bacha 2000		81	0.42	65	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	82	0.03	83	0.03
Badura 1965		24	0.63	41	0.00	26	0.15	23	0.47	4	0.63	19	0.54
Barbosa 1983		77	0.44	16	0.01	65	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.05	79	0.04
Biret 1990		44	0.57	4	0.03	34	0.09	33	0.32	28	0.28	34	0.30
Blet 2003		42	0.58	52	0.00	51	0.08	48	0.08	5	0.52	45	0.20
Block 1995		60	0.52	76	0.00	42	0.05	45	0.10	25	0.31	48	0.18
Blumental 1952		72	0.48	63	0.00	59	0.05	58	0.05	44	0.12	65	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Brailowsky 1960		79	0.44	77	0.00	81	0.04	80	0.04	49	0.06	69	0.05
Bunin 1987		54	0.53	17	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.12	6	0.54	41	0.25
Bunin 1987b		57	0.53	43	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.11	6	0.53	42	0.24
Chiu 1999		78	0.44	70	0.00	76	0.04	72	0.04	70	0.04	77	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.30	55	0.00	85	0.04	83	0.04	51	0.05	81	0.04
Cortot 1951		68	0.49	78	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	27	0.40	57	0.13
Csalog 1996		80	0.43	24	0.00	75	0.04	66	0.04	59	0.05	80	0.04
Czerny 1949		7	0.69	14	0.01	7	0.13	15	0.57	14	0.56	13	0.56
Czerny 1990		26	0.63	60	0.00	35	0.08	37	0.27	35	0.27	37	0.27
Duchoud 2007		69	0.49	8	0.01	68	0.04	76	0.04	19	0.32	60	0.11
Ezaki 2006		46	0.57	88	0.00	58	0.06	53	0.06	63	0.04	68	0.05
Falvay 1989		75	0.44	39	0.00	82	0.05	63	0.05	63	0.06	72	0.05
Farrell 1958		70	0.48	53	0.00	71	0.05	61	0.05	47	0.07	67	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		59	0.52	85	0.00	73	0.06	52	0.06	36	0.26	58	0.12
Fliere 1977		4	0.71	11	0.01	4	0.16	4	0.64	7	0.54	10	0.59
Fou 1978		37	0.61	45	0.00	37	0.08	35	0.28	30	0.27	36	0.27
Francois 1956		55	0.53	26	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	35	0.29	61	0.11
Friedman 1923		49	0.56	71	0.00	48	0.07	50	0.07	19	0.47	50	0.18
Friedman 1923b		48	0.56	80	0.00	46	0.07	49	0.07	20	0.48	49	0.18
Friedman 1930		39	0.59	22	0.00	47	0.08	47	0.08	20	0.48	46	0.20
Garcia 2007		53	0.54	37	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	26	0.41	54	0.14
Garcia 2007b		56	0.53	66	0.00	50	0.08	46	0.08	29	0.34	53	0.16
Gierzod 1998		2	0.75	2	0.07	2	0.35	2	0.74	15	0.60	1	0.67
Gornostaeva 1994		16	0.67	5	0.03	18	0.11	20	0.51	5	0.71	8	0.60
Groot 1988		65	0.51	31	0.00	55	0.04	70	0.04	51	0.06	76	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		3	0.73	12	0.01	3	0.29	3	0.67	12	0.62	3	0.64
Hatto 1993		32	0.61	25	0.00	15	0.17	8	0.59	13	0.48	21	0.53
Hatto 1997		29	0.62	9	0.01	14	0.13	10	0.58	13	0.50	18	0.54
Horowitz 1949		47	0.57	61	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.11	10	0.53	43	0.24
Indjic 1988		27	0.63	13	0.01	13	0.12	9	0.59	11	0.51	16	0.55
Kapell 1951		40	0.59	56	0.00	33	0.09	32	0.33	37	0.21	39	0.26
Kissin 1993		5	0.70	54	0.00	6	0.17	7	0.61	16	0.59	7	0.60
Kushner 1989		18	0.66	21	0.00	19	0.08	17	0.54	26	0.50	22	0.52
Luisada 1991		38	0.60	18	0.00	36	0.07	36	0.27	32	0.29	35	0.28
Lushtak 2004		52	0.54	57	0.00	54	0.05	60	0.05	37	0.22	62	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.67	6	0.03	16	0.13	14	0.57	7	0.60	12	0.58
Magaloff 1978		66	0.50	30	0.00	70	0.04	79	0.04	50	0.06	71	0.05
Magin 1975		10	0.68	27	0.00	24	0.12	30	0.42	28	0.35	30	0.38
Michalowski 1933		33	0.61	29	0.00	40	0.08	38	0.21	7	0.59	33	0.35
Milkina 1970		21	0.64	15	0.01	28	0.14	27	0.45	29	0.43	27	0.44
Mohovich 1999		58	0.53	81	0.00	56	0.05	55	0.05	57	0.05	74	0.05
Moravec 1969		84	0.38	42	0.00	84	0.03	87	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03
Morozova 2008		36	0.61	44	0.00	32	0.09	34	0.32	24	0.40	31	0.36
Neighaus 1950		8	0.68	47	0.00	9	0.09	12	0.58	5	0.62	9	0.60
Niedzielski 1931		51	0.54	48	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	42	0.15	64	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		25	0.63	86	0.00	21	0.07	26	0.45	25	0.41	28	0.43
Osinska 1989		17	0.66	28	0.00	27	0.15	22	0.48	29	0.43	26	0.45
Pachmann 1927		41	0.59	23	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	1	0.66	51	0.16
Paderewski 1930		43	0.57	49	0.00	49	0.06	51	0.06	3	0.67	44	0.20
Perlemuter 1992		50	0.54	35	0.00	52	0.04	67	0.04	27	0.32	59	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		64	0.51	38	0.00	60	0.05	54	0.05	29	0.34	55	0.13
Poblocka 1999		22	0.64	73	0.00	25	0.14	25	0.46	21	0.47	25	0.46
Rabcewiczowa 1932		73	0.46	89	0.00	74	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03	86	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		67	0.49	82	0.00	69	0.04	81	0.04	82	0.03	85	0.03
Rangell 2001		61	0.51	32	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	7	0.54	52	0.16
Richter 1976		6	0.69	7	0.02	8	0.15	16	0.56	4	0.67	5	0.61
Rosen 1989		30	0.62	50	0.00	39	0.06	41	0.17	36	0.24	47	0.20
Rosenthal 1930		74	0.45	90	0.00	78	0.04	77	0.04	42	0.19	63	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.35	83	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.35	84	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	80	0.03	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		82	0.40	64	0.00	83	0.04	71	0.04	63	0.04	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		87	0.33	74	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	72	0.04	88	0.03
Rossi 2007		76	0.44	46	0.00	80	0.04	82	0.04	54	0.06	70	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.48	59	0.00	72	0.05	56	0.05	70	0.04	78	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		83	0.39	51	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	82	0.03	89	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		62	0.51	40	0.00	64	0.04	65	0.04	43	0.14	66	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		15	0.67	20	0.00	23	0.10	21	0.50	14	0.57	20	0.53
Shebanova 2002		23	0.64	67	0.00	30	0.14	29	0.42	28	0.31	32	0.36
Smith 1975		35	0.61	36	0.00	38	0.07	40	0.19	19	0.35	38	0.26
Sokolov 2002		31	0.62	10	0.01	20	0.08	19	0.52	5	0.59	14	0.55
Sztompka 1959		12	0.67	87	0.00	10	0.09	13	0.58	19	0.53	15	0.55
Tomsic 1995		63	0.51	62	0.00	62	0.05	62	0.05	35	0.33	56	0.13
Uninsky 1932		34	0.61	75	0.00	29	0.12	28	0.44	10	0.55	23	0.49
Uninsky 1971		9	0.68	3	0.07	5	0.18	11	0.58	10	0.61	11	0.59
Wasowski 1980		28	0.62	34	0.00	31	0.11	31	0.41	11	0.53	24	0.47
Zak 1937		19	0.65	33	0.00	12	0.11	6	0.62	9	0.60	4	0.61
Zak 1951		20	0.65	72	0.00	11	0.10	5	0.62	9	0.58	6	0.60
Average		1	0.79	1	0.60	1	0.59	1	0.85	20	0.51	2	0.66
Random 1		90	-0.08	79	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	26	0.23	73	0.05
Random 2		91	-0.08	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	49	0.04	90	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.03	91	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	23	0.25	75	0.05

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).