Kissin 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		3	0.75	20	0.00	4	0.18	6	0.69	3	0.63	6	0.66
Anderszewski 2003		32	0.62	18	0.00	38	0.08	35	0.36	21	0.46	30	0.41
Ashkenazy 1981		27	0.63	6	0.02	22	0.08	32	0.37	14	0.46	32	0.41
Bacha 2000		87	0.39	61	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.03	88	0.02
Badura 1965		36	0.60	81	0.00	36	0.07	39	0.31	12	0.55	31	0.41
Barbosa 1983		76	0.47	25	0.00	68	0.04	75	0.04	67	0.04	81	0.04
Biret 1990		47	0.57	69	0.00	50	0.06	51	0.06	62	0.04	78	0.05
Blet 2003		55	0.55	34	0.00	62	0.04	67	0.04	31	0.22	70	0.09
Block 1995		62	0.51	79	0.00	61	0.04	70	0.04	43	0.11	74	0.07
Blumental 1952		54	0.55	40	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	37	0.17	52	0.15
Boshniakovich 1969		10	0.70	50	0.00	6	0.18	16	0.59	7	0.61	15	0.60
Brailowsky 1960		84	0.41	71	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	63	0.05	79	0.04
Bunin 1987		82	0.41	52	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	56	0.05	87	0.03
Bunin 1987b		85	0.40	57	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	46	0.06	80	0.04
Chiu 1999		72	0.48	56	0.00	73	0.04	74	0.04	49	0.06	76	0.05
Cohen 1997		88	0.31	53	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	67	0.04	86	0.03
Cortot 1951		65	0.50	36	0.00	71	0.03	83	0.03	21	0.47	58	0.12
Csalog 1996		68	0.50	21	0.00	65	0.05	55	0.05	26	0.31	57	0.12
Czerny 1949		16	0.68	11	0.01	8	0.17	9	0.65	9	0.59	11	0.62
Czerny 1990		5	0.72	22	0.00	9	0.16	7	0.67	9	0.67	5	0.67
Duchoud 2007		80	0.45	75	0.00	76	0.04	72	0.04	39	0.17	71	0.08
Ezaki 2006		18	0.68	15	0.01	23	0.09	31	0.40	18	0.54	26	0.46
Falvay 1989		49	0.56	43	0.00	58	0.04	69	0.04	38	0.24	65	0.10
Farrell 1958		46	0.57	32	0.00	40	0.08	41	0.28	20	0.45	39	0.35
Ferenczy 1958		74	0.48	82	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	67	0.03	85	0.03
Fliere 1977		20	0.67	44	0.00	20	0.10	23	0.50	34	0.22	41	0.33
Fou 1978		19	0.67	41	0.00	21	0.10	22	0.50	13	0.51	24	0.50
Francois 1956		64	0.51	77	0.00	66	0.05	59	0.05	34	0.30	59	0.12
Friedman 1923		58	0.53	74	0.00	57	0.04	62	0.04	30	0.37	60	0.12
Friedman 1923b		56	0.54	65	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	19	0.48	47	0.17
Friedman 1930		67	0.50	85	0.00	74	0.05	61	0.05	39	0.22	68	0.10
Garcia 2007		63	0.51	86	0.00	69	0.04	73	0.04	47	0.07	77	0.05
Garcia 2007b		60	0.52	62	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	69	0.04	84	0.04
Gierzod 1998		2	0.79	2	0.35	2	0.58	2	0.83	2	0.79	1	0.81
Gornostaeva 1994		48	0.57	51	0.00	55	0.06	53	0.06	34	0.21	63	0.11
Groot 1988		79	0.45	76	0.00	67	0.04	76	0.04	56	0.05	82	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		7	0.72	3	0.02	5	0.15	4	0.73	7	0.70	3	0.71
Hatto 1993		38	0.60	72	0.00	32	0.10	29	0.45	24	0.34	36	0.39
Hatto 1997		34	0.61	38	0.00	24	0.11	24	0.49	17	0.39	27	0.44
Horowitz 1949		59	0.53	87	0.00	64	0.05	56	0.05	29	0.45	50	0.15
Indjic 1988		33	0.62	58	0.00	25	0.10	25	0.48	20	0.39	29	0.43
Kapell 1951		35	0.61	54	0.00	37	0.07	33	0.37	34	0.24	42	0.30
Kissin 1993		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kushner 1989		22	0.67	29	0.00	33	0.10	28	0.47	27	0.48	25	0.47
Luisada 1991		25	0.65	19	0.00	31	0.11	37	0.36	17	0.42	33	0.39
Lushtak 2004		37	0.60	66	0.00	43	0.09	42	0.24	26	0.36	43	0.29
Malcuzynski 1961		45	0.58	23	0.00	42	0.08	43	0.24	11	0.48	40	0.34
Magaloff 1978		52	0.56	45	0.00	52	0.06	48	0.06	19	0.37	49	0.15
Magin 1975		12	0.70	37	0.00	13	0.08	12	0.61	12	0.53	18	0.57
Michalowski 1933		66	0.50	88	0.00	53	0.05	57	0.05	15	0.47	51	0.15
Milkina 1970		17	0.68	28	0.00	18	0.10	17	0.59	13	0.59	16	0.59
Mohovich 1999		50	0.56	78	0.00	46	0.05	54	0.05	39	0.20	69	0.10
Moravec 1969		61	0.52	55	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	26	0.37	54	0.12
Morozova 2008		14	0.69	48	0.00	14	0.08	14	0.61	4	0.62	12	0.61
Neighaus 1950		29	0.63	39	0.00	27	0.09	20	0.51	9	0.59	19	0.55
Niedzielski 1931		51	0.56	73	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.15	23	0.40	44	0.24
Ohlsson 1999		39	0.60	35	0.00	39	0.09	36	0.36	29	0.36	38	0.36
Osinska 1989		21	0.67	30	0.00	19	0.12	19	0.55	28	0.47	22	0.51
Pachmann 1927		69	0.50	49	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	13	0.47	56	0.12
Paderewski 1930		77	0.47	63	0.00	72	0.03	84	0.03	28	0.33	66	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		40	0.60	46	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	21	0.42	48	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.50	59	0.00	59	0.04	63	0.04	28	0.34	55	0.12
Poblocka 1999		8	0.71	8	0.01	10	0.11	8	0.66	5	0.64	7	0.65
Rabcewiczowa 1932		53	0.55	60	0.00	48	0.07	46	0.07	37	0.18	62	0.11
Rachmaninoff 1923		44	0.58	47	0.00	28	0.09	30	0.41	20	0.36	37	0.38
Rangell 2001		71	0.49	31	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	17	0.43	53	0.15
Richter 1976		23	0.67	9	0.01	30	0.09	27	0.47	8	0.63	21	0.54
Rosen 1989		26	0.65	4	0.02	35	0.11	34	0.36	15	0.43	35	0.39
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.48	89	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	36	0.23	72	0.08
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.44	90	0.00	80	0.04	71	0.04	31	0.26	67	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.41	91	0.00	87	0.03	77	0.03	50	0.05	83	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		78	0.46	70	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	36	0.24	73	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.39	83	0.00	88	0.04	68	0.04	45	0.13	75	0.07
Rossi 2007		75	0.47	67	0.00	75	0.04	65	0.04	36	0.26	64	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		43	0.59	27	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	16	0.40	45	0.17
Rubinstein 1952		41	0.59	10	0.01	29	0.09	38	0.36	11	0.55	28	0.44
Rubinstein 1966		28	0.63	13	0.01	26	0.09	21	0.51	18	0.51	23	0.51
Schilhawsky 1960		11	0.70	33	0.00	11	0.16	15	0.60	7	0.60	14	0.60
Shebanova 2002		9	0.71	12	0.01	7	0.13	5	0.69	4	0.62	8	0.65
Smith 1975		42	0.59	16	0.01	54	0.06	52	0.06	39	0.19	61	0.11
Sokolov 2002		31	0.62	5	0.02	34	0.13	26	0.48	4	0.60	20	0.54
Sztompka 1959		4	0.74	7	0.02	3	0.21	3	0.76	2	0.75	2	0.75
Tomsic 1995		57	0.54	26	0.00	56	0.05	60	0.05	13	0.55	46	0.17
Uninsky 1932		24	0.66	68	0.00	17	0.12	18	0.58	5	0.60	17	0.59
Uninsky 1971		15	0.68	24	0.00	16	0.11	11	0.62	5	0.64	10	0.63
Wasowski 1980		30	0.63	42	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.30	14	0.51	34	0.39
Zak 1937		6	0.72	17	0.00	12	0.11	10	0.63	6	0.65	9	0.64
Zak 1951		13	0.70	14	0.01	15	0.10	13	0.61	8	0.59	13	0.60
Average		1	0.81	1	0.40	1	0.39	1	0.87	12	0.57	4	0.70
Random 1		90	-0.08	84	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	57	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.06	64	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	52	0.04	89	0.02
Random 3		91	-0.12	80	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.03	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).