Indjic 1988

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	0.68	23	0.00	14	0.13	16	0.43	15	0.49	18	0.46
Anderszewski 2003		19	0.65	24	0.00	35	0.06	33	0.23	28	0.40	34	0.30
Ashkenazy 1981		23	0.64	7	0.00	29	0.08	29	0.29	19	0.41	31	0.34
Bacha 2000		52	0.53	25	0.00	67	0.04	68	0.04	26	0.29	60	0.11
Badura 1965		22	0.64	4	0.00	39	0.06	30	0.28	5	0.62	22	0.42
Barbosa 1983		47	0.55	26	0.00	69	0.04	63	0.04	50	0.06	75	0.05
Biret 1990		39	0.58	27	0.00	43	0.07	39	0.19	31	0.24	43	0.21
Blet 2003		57	0.51	28	0.00	58	0.05	55	0.05	10	0.44	46	0.15
Block 1995		67	0.47	29	0.00	59	0.05	62	0.05	76	0.04	78	0.04
Blumental 1952		28	0.62	30	0.00	38	0.06	32	0.26	17	0.37	33	0.31
Boshniakovich 1969		27	0.63	12	0.00	12	0.09	11	0.51	9	0.59	11	0.55
Brailowsky 1960		63	0.48	8	0.00	77	0.04	70	0.04	78	0.04	77	0.04
Bunin 1987		71	0.44	31	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	21	0.40	55	0.13
Bunin 1987b		74	0.43	13	0.00	72	0.04	69	0.04	23	0.40	54	0.13
Chiu 1999		30	0.61	32	0.00	52	0.05	58	0.05	14	0.37	47	0.14
Cohen 1997		62	0.48	33	0.00	70	0.03	74	0.03	17	0.39	63	0.11
Cortot 1951		65	0.48	34	0.00	68	0.04	72	0.04	13	0.52	52	0.14
Csalog 1996		78	0.40	35	0.00	74	0.04	65	0.04	40	0.14	71	0.07
Czerny 1949		13	0.67	9	0.00	10	0.11	7	0.56	8	0.59	9	0.57
Czerny 1990		12	0.67	14	0.00	27	0.09	19	0.39	21	0.46	23	0.42
Duchoud 2007		70	0.45	15	0.00	73	0.04	66	0.04	33	0.19	68	0.09
Ezaki 2006		20	0.65	36	0.00	37	0.05	40	0.19	32	0.31	39	0.24
Falvay 1989		75	0.42	37	0.00	84	0.03	75	0.03	73	0.04	84	0.03
Farrell 1958		44	0.57	38	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	42	0.19	62	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		45	0.56	39	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	15	0.50	44	0.17
Fliere 1977		4	0.72	40	0.00	6	0.26	6	0.56	6	0.54	10	0.55
Fou 1978		40	0.58	41	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	41	0.16	53	0.13
Francois 1956		69	0.45	42	0.00	75	0.07	47	0.07	43	0.13	64	0.10
Friedman 1923		8	0.70	43	0.00	8	0.12	13	0.50	4	0.71	7	0.60
Friedman 1923b		6	0.71	44	0.00	7	0.12	10	0.52	4	0.71	6	0.61
Friedman 1930		15	0.66	45	0.00	19	0.09	15	0.45	6	0.64	12	0.54
Garcia 2007		55	0.52	46	0.00	57	0.05	56	0.05	23	0.41	50	0.14
Garcia 2007b		49	0.54	3	0.00	22	0.05	28	0.30	11	0.53	26	0.40
Gierzod 1998		5	0.71	47	0.00	5	0.19	4	0.64	13	0.61	4	0.62
Gornostaeva 1994		66	0.47	16	0.00	63	0.03	80	0.03	59	0.03	87	0.03
Groot 1988		60	0.51	48	0.00	50	0.06	51	0.06	37	0.15	69	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.70	49	0.00	15	0.12	12	0.51	20	0.55	13	0.53
Hatto 1993		2	0.99	1	0.60	1	0.59	2	1.00	1	1.00	2	1.00
Hatto 1997		1	1.00	2	0.40	2	0.97	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Horowitz 1949		61	0.49	50	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	16	0.50	49	0.14
Indjic 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kapell 1951		53	0.53	51	0.00	41	0.06	36	0.22	38	0.20	42	0.21
Kissin 1993		29	0.62	52	0.00	23	0.06	20	0.39	25	0.48	20	0.43
Kushner 1989		32	0.60	53	0.00	44	0.10	34	0.22	36	0.27	40	0.24
Luisada 1991		18	0.66	54	0.00	24	0.06	31	0.26	11	0.48	29	0.35
Lushtak 2004		21	0.65	55	0.00	31	0.06	26	0.30	16	0.51	27	0.39
Malcuzynski 1961		76	0.42	56	0.00	33	0.05	44	0.12	40	0.12	58	0.12
Magaloff 1978		54	0.52	10	0.00	51	0.05	54	0.05	30	0.26	61	0.11
Magin 1975		41	0.57	57	0.00	30	0.09	37	0.22	32	0.29	38	0.25
Michalowski 1933		77	0.41	58	0.00	66	0.03	78	0.03	30	0.27	66	0.09
Milkina 1970		43	0.57	59	0.00	48	0.05	59	0.05	58	0.05	73	0.05
Mohovich 1999		48	0.54	60	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	34	0.32	51	0.14
Moravec 1969		80	0.39	17	0.00	83	0.03	77	0.03	64	0.04	82	0.03
Morozova 2008		25	0.63	61	0.00	20	0.07	27	0.30	19	0.42	30	0.35
Neighaus 1950		35	0.60	62	0.00	17	0.09	18	0.42	10	0.59	16	0.50
Niedzielski 1931		50	0.54	63	0.00	40	0.06	43	0.14	14	0.46	37	0.25
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.64	64	0.00	21	0.06	23	0.37	17	0.46	25	0.41
Osinska 1989		9	0.69	65	0.00	9	0.11	5	0.59	9	0.64	5	0.61
Pachmann 1927		83	0.37	66	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.03
Paderewski 1930		73	0.43	67	0.00	65	0.03	85	0.03	13	0.51	59	0.12
Perlemuter 1992		51	0.53	68	0.00	61	0.03	76	0.03	31	0.29	65	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		81	0.38	69	0.00	76	0.05	61	0.05	45	0.10	70	0.07
Poblocka 1999		42	0.57	70	0.00	16	0.09	24	0.37	18	0.49	19	0.43
Rabcewiczowa 1932		64	0.48	71	0.00	62	0.04	73	0.04	49	0.06	72	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		34	0.60	72	0.00	36	0.05	41	0.18	30	0.27	41	0.22
Rangell 2001		88	0.30	73	0.00	79	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.03
Richter 1976		58	0.51	74	0.00	56	0.05	52	0.05	14	0.54	45	0.16
Rosen 1989		38	0.59	11	0.00	34	0.05	35	0.22	19	0.39	35	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		79	0.39	5	0.00	78	0.05	60	0.05	47	0.06	76	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.31	18	0.00	86	0.03	88	0.03	67	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.30	75	0.00	87	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		84	0.35	76	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	54	0.05	80	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.31	77	0.00	88	0.04	67	0.04	49	0.05	79	0.04
Rossi 2007		68	0.46	78	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	68	0.04	83	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		36	0.60	19	0.00	47	0.05	57	0.05	17	0.39	48	0.14
Rubinstein 1952		72	0.44	79	0.00	64	0.03	83	0.03	50	0.06	81	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		16	0.66	80	0.00	28	0.09	25	0.32	22	0.46	28	0.38
Schilhawsky 1960		11	0.68	81	0.00	13	0.11	14	0.47	16	0.54	15	0.50
Shebanova 2002		26	0.63	6	0.00	11	0.14	9	0.52	13	0.53	14	0.52
Smith 1975		46	0.56	82	0.00	55	0.07	46	0.07	38	0.20	57	0.12
Sokolov 2002		56	0.52	83	0.00	54	0.05	53	0.05	27	0.28	56	0.12
Sztompka 1959		33	0.60	84	0.00	18	0.13	17	0.43	20	0.53	17	0.48
Tomsic 1995		82	0.38	85	0.00	80	0.03	87	0.03	49	0.08	74	0.05
Uninsky 1932		59	0.51	86	0.00	32	0.05	42	0.17	24	0.45	36	0.28
Uninsky 1971		37	0.59	20	0.00	4	0.18	8	0.55	13	0.60	8	0.57
Wasowski 1980		31	0.61	21	0.00	42	0.07	38	0.22	20	0.45	32	0.31
Zak 1937		14	0.67	87	0.00	25	0.07	21	0.39	18	0.45	21	0.42
Zak 1951		17	0.66	88	0.00	26	0.12	22	0.38	20	0.45	24	0.41
Average		3	0.79	89	0.00	3	0.68	3	0.83	14	0.56	3	0.68
Random 1		90	-0.13	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	72	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		89	0.00	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	13	0.40	67	0.09
Random 3		91	-0.14	22	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	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).