Hatto 1993

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		10	0.67	34	0.00	13	0.11	18	0.39	16	0.48	19	0.43
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.65	10	0.00	33	0.08	33	0.25	23	0.45	31	0.34
Ashkenazy 1981		22	0.64	35	0.00	27	0.08	27	0.29	18	0.42	29	0.35
Bacha 2000		50	0.53	22	0.00	62	0.04	75	0.04	17	0.36	57	0.12
Badura 1965		24	0.63	23	0.00	35	0.06	30	0.27	7	0.60	24	0.40
Barbosa 1983		45	0.55	36	0.00	65	0.04	73	0.04	51	0.06	76	0.05
Biret 1990		41	0.57	14	0.00	41	0.07	38	0.20	32	0.24	41	0.22
Blet 2003		58	0.50	37	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	11	0.44	54	0.13
Block 1995		66	0.46	38	0.00	57	0.05	56	0.05	44	0.11	70	0.07
Blumental 1952		26	0.62	39	0.00	31	0.05	26	0.29	13	0.40	32	0.34
Boshniakovich 1969		28	0.61	9	0.00	15	0.11	13	0.48	8	0.59	13	0.53
Brailowsky 1960		62	0.48	40	0.00	78	0.05	54	0.05	64	0.05	74	0.05
Bunin 1987		70	0.44	41	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	22	0.40	62	0.11
Bunin 1987b		73	0.43	15	0.00	73	0.06	51	0.06	22	0.40	48	0.15
Chiu 1999		30	0.60	42	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	20	0.34	49	0.14
Cohen 1997		61	0.48	43	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	15	0.40	56	0.13
Cortot 1951		65	0.47	44	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	14	0.52	51	0.14
Csalog 1996		79	0.39	11	0.00	75	0.05	60	0.05	42	0.13	68	0.08
Czerny 1949		18	0.65	5	0.00	11	0.11	8	0.54	11	0.58	10	0.56
Czerny 1990		12	0.66	45	0.00	23	0.08	19	0.38	19	0.47	20	0.42
Duchoud 2007		69	0.44	46	0.00	71	0.03	83	0.03	36	0.18	69	0.07
Ezaki 2006		19	0.65	47	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.23	31	0.31	37	0.27
Falvay 1989		76	0.41	16	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	59	0.06	78	0.04
Farrell 1958		39	0.58	24	0.00	54	0.06	48	0.06	43	0.18	63	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		46	0.55	48	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	13	0.50	45	0.19
Fliere 1977		4	0.71	3	0.00	5	0.20	6	0.57	4	0.55	9	0.56
Fou 1978		40	0.57	49	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	42	0.16	53	0.13
Francois 1956		72	0.44	50	0.00	74	0.04	72	0.04	45	0.12	71	0.07
Friedman 1923		8	0.69	25	0.00	8	0.13	12	0.48	5	0.71	7	0.58
Friedman 1923b		5	0.70	51	0.00	7	0.13	11	0.50	5	0.71	5	0.60
Friedman 1930		14	0.66	26	0.00	16	0.12	14	0.43	4	0.65	12	0.53
Garcia 2007		55	0.52	52	0.00	59	0.04	68	0.04	29	0.39	60	0.12
Garcia 2007b		51	0.53	53	0.00	38	0.07	31	0.26	16	0.51	28	0.36
Gierzod 1998		6	0.70	17	0.00	6	0.31	4	0.62	14	0.61	4	0.61
Gornostaeva 1994		67	0.46	18	0.00	64	0.04	74	0.04	63	0.03	88	0.03
Groot 1988		57	0.51	19	0.00	52	0.05	55	0.05	35	0.15	66	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.70	12	0.00	12	0.11	9	0.53	19	0.57	11	0.55
Hatto 1993		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Hatto 1997		2	0.99	2	0.22	2	0.96	2	0.99	2	1.00	2	0.99
Horowitz 1949		63	0.48	54	0.00	58	0.05	59	0.05	15	0.50	47	0.16
Indjic 1988		1	0.99	1	0.78	1	0.77	1	1.00	2	1.00	1	1.00
Kapell 1951		53	0.52	20	0.00	40	0.07	35	0.22	39	0.20	43	0.21
Kissin 1993		31	0.60	55	0.00	28	0.09	24	0.34	29	0.45	25	0.39
Kushner 1989		33	0.59	56	0.00	43	0.07	39	0.20	40	0.21	44	0.20
Luisada 1991		16	0.66	57	0.00	26	0.09	32	0.25	14	0.47	30	0.34
Lushtak 2004		20	0.65	27	0.00	32	0.06	28	0.29	17	0.50	27	0.38
Malcuzynski 1961		75	0.41	58	0.00	47	0.05	58	0.05	46	0.06	75	0.05
Magaloff 1978		54	0.52	4	0.00	53	0.05	53	0.05	29	0.27	59	0.12
Magin 1975		42	0.57	59	0.00	29	0.08	36	0.22	34	0.28	39	0.25
Michalowski 1933		77	0.39	60	0.00	69	0.03	78	0.03	36	0.23	67	0.08
Milkina 1970		44	0.56	61	0.00	51	0.06	52	0.06	53	0.06	73	0.06
Mohovich 1999		48	0.54	62	0.00	50	0.05	57	0.05	36	0.32	55	0.13
Moravec 1969		80	0.38	63	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03
Morozova 2008		25	0.63	7	0.00	21	0.06	29	0.27	23	0.41	33	0.33
Neighaus 1950		36	0.59	64	0.00	18	0.10	16	0.41	8	0.59	15	0.49
Niedzielski 1931		49	0.53	28	0.00	30	0.04	41	0.19	11	0.47	34	0.30
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.63	65	0.00	24	0.07	23	0.36	22	0.44	23	0.40
Osinska 1989		9	0.67	66	0.00	10	0.11	5	0.58	11	0.61	6	0.59
Pachmann 1927		83	0.35	67	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	72	0.03	86	0.03
Paderewski 1930		74	0.42	68	0.00	66	0.04	70	0.04	15	0.49	50	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		56	0.52	69	0.00	63	0.05	61	0.05	30	0.29	58	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.37	8	0.00	76	0.04	63	0.04	47	0.10	72	0.06
Poblocka 1999		43	0.56	29	0.00	17	0.09	21	0.38	17	0.49	18	0.43
Rabcewiczowa 1932		64	0.47	30	0.00	61	0.03	77	0.03	50	0.05	79	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		32	0.59	70	0.00	36	0.05	40	0.19	29	0.27	40	0.23
Rangell 2001		88	0.28	71	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	59	0.05	81	0.04
Richter 1976		59	0.50	72	0.00	48	0.05	62	0.05	13	0.55	46	0.17
Rosen 1989		37	0.58	21	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.21	20	0.39	36	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		78	0.39	73	0.00	77	0.04	65	0.04	38	0.19	65	0.09
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.30	74	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	69	0.04	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.30	75	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	66	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		84	0.34	76	0.00	80	0.03	85	0.03	53	0.05	83	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.30	77	0.00	88	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.04	82	0.04
Rossi 2007		68	0.45	78	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.04	85	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		35	0.59	79	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.11	21	0.39	42	0.21
Rubinstein 1952		71	0.44	80	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	52	0.06	77	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		17	0.66	81	0.00	25	0.07	25	0.31	21	0.48	26	0.39
Schilhawsky 1960		11	0.67	13	0.00	14	0.13	15	0.42	18	0.53	16	0.47
Shebanova 2002		27	0.62	82	0.00	9	0.10	10	0.51	14	0.52	14	0.51
Smith 1975		47	0.55	83	0.00	56	0.07	46	0.07	41	0.17	61	0.11
Sokolov 2002		52	0.52	31	0.00	55	0.06	49	0.06	28	0.28	52	0.13
Sztompka 1959		34	0.59	84	0.00	19	0.14	17	0.40	23	0.51	17	0.45
Tomsic 1995		82	0.37	85	0.00	83	0.03	76	0.03	59	0.06	80	0.04
Uninsky 1932		60	0.50	86	0.00	39	0.08	42	0.18	21	0.46	35	0.29
Uninsky 1971		38	0.58	32	0.00	4	0.18	7	0.55	14	0.60	8	0.57
Wasowski 1980		29	0.60	87	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.17	26	0.40	38	0.26
Zak 1937		15	0.66	88	0.00	20	0.07	20	0.38	19	0.45	21	0.41
Zak 1951		13	0.66	89	0.00	22	0.06	22	0.37	21	0.45	22	0.41
Average		3	0.78	6	0.00	3	0.68	3	0.82	16	0.55	3	0.67
Random 1		90	-0.13	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		89	0.01	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	12	0.41	64	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.14	33	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01

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).