Csalog 1996

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		35	0.45	23	0.00	49	0.04	65	0.04	66	0.04	69	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		50	0.40	35	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.13	87	0.03	52	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		79	0.33	72	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03
Bacha 2000		53	0.40	36	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	43	0.10	42	0.08
Badura 1965		56	0.40	7	0.01	51	0.05	56	0.05	55	0.05	57	0.05
Barbosa 1983		65	0.36	73	0.00	28	0.06	33	0.22	43	0.12	23	0.16
Biret 1990		22	0.50	13	0.01	24	0.09	22	0.37	73	0.04	38	0.12
Blet 2003		20	0.50	12	0.01	21	0.09	21	0.38	9	0.45	8	0.41
Block 1995		59	0.39	20	0.00	29	0.06	34	0.18	74	0.04	44	0.08
Blumental 1952		26	0.48	47	0.00	9	0.15	12	0.49	40	0.15	11	0.27
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.43	31	0.00	50	0.05	59	0.05	66	0.04	71	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		51	0.40	53	0.00	69	0.05	61	0.05	65	0.05	55	0.05
Bunin 1987		69	0.35	63	0.00	79	0.04	69	0.04	77	0.03	85	0.03
Bunin 1987b		72	0.35	74	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	72	0.04	61	0.04
Chiu 1999		57	0.40	69	0.00	35	0.08	30	0.25	29	0.22	15	0.23
Cohen 1997		73	0.35	29	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.13	14	0.40	17	0.23
Cortot 1951		83	0.31	75	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	72	0.04	88	0.03
Csalog 1996		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1949		75	0.34	88	0.00	77	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.04	83	0.03
Czerny 1990		24	0.49	76	0.00	19	0.08	19	0.39	67	0.04	37	0.12
Duchoud 2007		81	0.32	37	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	62	0.05	70	0.04
Ezaki 2006		27	0.48	54	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.36	59	0.05	29	0.13
Falvay 1989		2	0.64	2	0.30	2	0.40	1	0.72	3	0.64	2	0.68
Farrell 1958		76	0.34	77	0.00	67	0.03	75	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		3	0.61	3	0.12	3	0.28	4	0.65	1	0.75	1	0.70
Fliere 1977		16	0.52	6	0.02	15	0.07	16	0.42	54	0.05	27	0.14
Fou 1978		19	0.51	22	0.00	17	0.09	18	0.41	48	0.06	21	0.16
Francois 1956		68	0.36	57	0.00	75	0.04	71	0.04	60	0.04	73	0.04
Friedman 1923		87	0.23	60	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	85	0.03	89	0.03
Friedman 1923b		88	0.23	70	0.00	86	0.03	87	0.03	85	0.03	86	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.28	48	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.03
Garcia 2007		45	0.43	66	0.00	56	0.06	47	0.06	46	0.07	53	0.06
Garcia 2007b		47	0.42	51	0.00	58	0.04	63	0.04	55	0.04	74	0.04
Gierzod 1998		15	0.52	45	0.00	20	0.08	13	0.44	67	0.04	31	0.13
Gornostaeva 1994		41	0.44	67	0.00	41	0.05	38	0.15	64	0.03	50	0.07
Groot 1988		29	0.48	82	0.00	31	0.06	27	0.30	44	0.09	25	0.16
Harasiewicz 1955		38	0.44	55	0.00	34	0.08	28	0.30	74	0.04	40	0.11
Hatto 1993		60	0.39	19	0.00	39	0.06	42	0.13	60	0.05	45	0.08
Hatto 1997		49	0.41	8	0.01	36	0.08	37	0.17	73	0.04	43	0.08
Horowitz 1949		86	0.26	52	0.00	88	0.04	68	0.04	77	0.04	62	0.04
Indjic 1988		54	0.40	15	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.14	65	0.04	49	0.07
Kapell 1951		1	0.65	1	0.30	1	0.30	2	0.71	13	0.43	4	0.55
Kissin 1993		21	0.50	16	0.00	32	0.07	26	0.31	55	0.05	34	0.12
Kushner 1989		7	0.56	10	0.01	10	0.15	11	0.49	42	0.13	13	0.25
Luisada 1991		55	0.40	58	0.00	57	0.07	46	0.07	62	0.05	51	0.06
Lushtak 2004		28	0.48	39	0.00	18	0.06	20	0.38	43	0.13	19	0.22
Malcuzynski 1961		71	0.35	28	0.00	68	0.03	74	0.03	75	0.03	78	0.03
Magaloff 1978		61	0.39	26	0.00	71	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.03
Magin 1975		31	0.47	43	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.11	61	0.04	48	0.07
Michalowski 1933		84	0.28	79	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	77	0.03	90	0.02
Milkina 1970		17	0.52	18	0.00	27	0.06	25	0.34	64	0.05	30	0.13
Mohovich 1999		6	0.57	5	0.02	5	0.23	5	0.64	19	0.54	3	0.59
Moravec 1969		18	0.51	24	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.22	24	0.38	10	0.29
Morozova 2008		48	0.41	89	0.00	55	0.05	49	0.05	74	0.03	67	0.04
Neighaus 1950		82	0.31	83	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	77	0.04	87	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.38	80	0.00	64	0.04	62	0.04	70	0.03	76	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		74	0.35	64	0.00	54	0.05	54	0.05	70	0.04	65	0.04
Osinska 1989		10	0.54	30	0.00	11	0.13	9	0.51	53	0.07	20	0.19
Pachmann 1927		78	0.33	65	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	53	0.05	64	0.04
Paderewski 1930		80	0.32	81	0.00	85	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.47	56	0.00	30	0.06	31	0.24	35	0.21	18	0.22
Pierdomenico 2008		52	0.40	21	0.00	47	0.05	57	0.05	46	0.10	47	0.07
Poblocka 1999		12	0.53	17	0.00	12	0.11	6	0.56	41	0.17	9	0.31
Rabcewiczowa 1932		25	0.48	78	0.00	23	0.07	24	0.36	63	0.04	33	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.35	90	0.00	65	0.05	53	0.05	77	0.04	60	0.04
Rangell 2001		67	0.36	84	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	70	0.04	72	0.04
Richter 1976		77	0.33	68	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.04
Rosen 1989		9	0.55	46	0.00	14	0.06	14	0.43	44	0.12	16	0.23
Rosenthal 1930		34	0.45	62	0.00	59	0.04	66	0.04	39	0.19	41	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		39	0.44	49	0.00	60	0.05	52	0.05	26	0.30	35	0.12
Rosenthal 1931b		33	0.46	14	0.01	61	0.05	55	0.05	27	0.29	39	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		23	0.50	32	0.00	37	0.06	36	0.17	26	0.40	12	0.26
Rosenthal 1931d		40	0.44	61	0.00	63	0.05	51	0.05	28	0.39	28	0.14
Rossi 2007		58	0.39	44	0.00	26	0.07	35	0.18	28	0.32	14	0.24
Rubinstein 1939		42	0.43	50	0.00	42	0.07	39	0.15	43	0.10	32	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		5	0.58	40	0.00	7	0.21	8	0.51	16	0.48	6	0.49
Rubinstein 1966		13	0.53	11	0.01	6	0.22	7	0.51	31	0.35	7	0.42
Schilhawsky 1960		64	0.37	85	0.00	73	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03
Shebanova 2002		30	0.48	86	0.00	22	0.08	29	0.29	53	0.05	36	0.12
Smith 1975		43	0.43	41	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	75	0.04	46	0.07
Sokolov 2002		36	0.45	71	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	49	0.05	56	0.05
Sztompka 1959		66	0.36	87	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	84	0.03	80	0.03
Tomsic 1995		8	0.55	9	0.01	8	0.15	10	0.50	10	0.59	5	0.54
Uninsky 1932		62	0.39	33	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	71	0.04	68	0.04
Uninsky 1971		37	0.44	38	0.00	52	0.05	58	0.05	73	0.04	66	0.04
Wasowski 1980		46	0.42	27	0.00	53	0.05	60	0.05	78	0.04	59	0.04
Zak 1937		14	0.53	25	0.00	16	0.08	17	0.41	55	0.06	22	0.16
Zak 1951		11	0.54	34	0.00	13	0.12	15	0.43	63	0.05	26	0.15
Average		4	0.59	4	0.10	4	0.27	3	0.68	68	0.04	24	0.16
Random 1		90	-0.10	59	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	41	0.12	58	0.05
Random 2		91	-0.16	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.06	42	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	34	0.18	54	0.06

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).