Sztompka 1959

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		11	0.70	7	0.01	10	0.13	15	0.57	11	0.57	18	0.57
Anderszewski 2003		26	0.64	39	0.00	30	0.14	29	0.48	14	0.51	26	0.49
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.68	5	0.02	14	0.12	10	0.60	3	0.66	8	0.63
Bacha 2000		65	0.52	64	0.00	69	0.05	65	0.05	25	0.31	60	0.12
Badura 1965		57	0.56	46	0.00	62	0.07	48	0.07	27	0.37	51	0.16
Barbosa 1983		73	0.48	88	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	44	0.12	73	0.07
Biret 1990		36	0.61	51	0.00	35	0.10	34	0.37	14	0.46	36	0.41
Blet 2003		66	0.51	47	0.00	71	0.06	56	0.06	26	0.30	58	0.13
Block 1995		62	0.54	65	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.15	13	0.50	42	0.27
Blumental 1952		59	0.56	8	0.01	37	0.09	40	0.22	27	0.24	44	0.23
Boshniakovich 1969		17	0.67	73	0.00	16	0.09	19	0.53	13	0.58	21	0.55
Brailowsky 1960		68	0.50	34	0.00	75	0.04	75	0.04	43	0.19	66	0.09
Bunin 1987		84	0.41	78	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	50	0.05	86	0.04
Bunin 1987b		85	0.39	89	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	48	0.05	82	0.04
Chiu 1999		67	0.51	52	0.00	66	0.04	78	0.04	36	0.16	71	0.08
Cohen 1997		88	0.35	79	0.00	88	0.04	74	0.04	78	0.03	89	0.03
Cortot 1951		45	0.59	25	0.00	36	0.08	39	0.22	5	0.69	37	0.39
Csalog 1996		87	0.36	80	0.00	81	0.03	84	0.03	73	0.03	88	0.03
Czerny 1949		5	0.73	2	0.07	2	0.19	7	0.64	6	0.68	5	0.66
Czerny 1990		10	0.70	40	0.00	19	0.13	8	0.63	8	0.69	6	0.66
Duchoud 2007		71	0.49	70	0.00	73	0.08	46	0.08	11	0.43	48	0.19
Ezaki 2006		47	0.59	90	0.00	61	0.05	59	0.05	50	0.06	77	0.05
Falvay 1989		76	0.47	76	0.00	82	0.03	88	0.03	66	0.05	81	0.04
Farrell 1958		25	0.64	19	0.01	21	0.10	22	0.52	2	0.70	11	0.60
Ferenczy 1958		72	0.48	58	0.00	67	0.03	79	0.03	39	0.25	70	0.09
Fliere 1977		8	0.71	43	0.00	8	0.11	11	0.59	9	0.52	19	0.55
Fou 1978		15	0.68	11	0.01	11	0.13	13	0.58	7	0.60	15	0.59
Francois 1956		43	0.60	29	0.00	46	0.08	47	0.08	2	0.64	45	0.23
Friedman 1923		53	0.58	42	0.00	56	0.05	62	0.05	26	0.42	57	0.14
Friedman 1923b		48	0.59	41	0.00	50	0.06	54	0.06	21	0.47	50	0.17
Friedman 1930		54	0.58	62	0.00	55	0.04	70	0.04	25	0.45	59	0.13
Garcia 2007		34	0.61	69	0.00	38	0.09	35	0.36	5	0.60	30	0.46
Garcia 2007b		27	0.64	36	0.00	26	0.11	28	0.48	7	0.59	24	0.53
Gierzod 1998		4	0.73	20	0.01	3	0.19	3	0.70	7	0.65	4	0.67
Gornostaeva 1994		33	0.62	27	0.00	49	0.05	58	0.05	18	0.44	55	0.15
Groot 1988		75	0.48	38	0.00	54	0.05	67	0.05	52	0.06	79	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.71	13	0.01	7	0.20	12	0.59	13	0.61	13	0.60
Hatto 1993		44	0.59	57	0.00	28	0.13	23	0.51	17	0.40	33	0.45
Hatto 1997		41	0.60	44	0.00	29	0.12	27	0.50	16	0.41	32	0.45
Horowitz 1949		56	0.56	71	0.00	63	0.05	57	0.05	19	0.48	54	0.15
Indjic 1988		38	0.60	81	0.00	27	0.11	20	0.53	17	0.43	27	0.48
Kapell 1951		30	0.63	15	0.01	15	0.09	30	0.48	9	0.47	28	0.47
Kissin 1993		3	0.74	10	0.01	4	0.26	2	0.75	3	0.76	1	0.75
Kushner 1989		7	0.71	18	0.01	13	0.10	6	0.64	12	0.60	9	0.62
Luisada 1991		39	0.60	63	0.00	51	0.07	50	0.07	41	0.16	61	0.11
Lushtak 2004		55	0.57	32	0.00	57	0.04	69	0.04	34	0.23	65	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		52	0.58	6	0.02	52	0.06	55	0.06	20	0.38	53	0.15
Magaloff 1978		64	0.54	59	0.00	72	0.06	52	0.06	41	0.14	68	0.09
Magin 1975		19	0.67	14	0.01	20	0.13	25	0.51	8	0.55	23	0.53
Michalowski 1933		50	0.59	83	0.00	48	0.07	49	0.07	5	0.61	46	0.21
Milkina 1970		14	0.68	22	0.00	25	0.10	31	0.43	22	0.48	31	0.45
Mohovich 1999		60	0.55	74	0.00	58	0.05	66	0.05	44	0.12	72	0.08
Moravec 1969		78	0.45	60	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	47	0.06	78	0.05
Morozova 2008		23	0.65	30	0.00	32	0.10	33	0.41	8	0.51	29	0.46
Neighaus 1950		2	0.75	12	0.01	5	0.23	4	0.67	2	0.75	3	0.71
Niedzielski 1931		40	0.60	49	0.00	34	0.08	36	0.35	6	0.52	34	0.43
Ohlsson 1999		12	0.69	9	0.01	17	0.12	16	0.54	8	0.61	16	0.57
Osinska 1989		21	0.66	26	0.00	23	0.11	21	0.52	23	0.51	25	0.51
Pachmann 1927		79	0.44	54	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	54	0.05	84	0.04
Paderewski 1930		61	0.54	55	0.00	59	0.05	61	0.05	4	0.65	49	0.18
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.60	48	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.15	7	0.58	39	0.29
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.49	56	0.00	70	0.05	63	0.05	19	0.42	56	0.14
Poblocka 1999		16	0.67	21	0.01	18	0.13	9	0.61	8	0.60	10	0.60
Rabcewiczowa 1932		29	0.63	35	0.00	31	0.09	26	0.50	4	0.61	20	0.55
Rachmaninoff 1923		31	0.62	24	0.00	33	0.10	32	0.41	13	0.41	35	0.41
Rangell 2001		58	0.56	33	0.00	53	0.07	51	0.07	5	0.59	47	0.20
Richter 1976		32	0.62	3	0.03	42	0.07	42	0.18	7	0.64	38	0.34
Rosen 1989		28	0.63	45	0.00	39	0.08	38	0.23	23	0.36	40	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.46	66	0.00	77	0.04	72	0.04	34	0.25	64	0.10
Rosenthal 1931		80	0.43	67	0.00	83	0.03	87	0.03	43	0.16	74	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.42	82	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	41	0.16	76	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.43	84	0.00	85	0.04	77	0.04	48	0.06	80	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.39	91	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	59	0.04	90	0.03
Rossi 2007		74	0.48	53	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	39	0.22	67	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		63	0.54	23	0.00	65	0.05	64	0.05	36	0.26	62	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		70	0.49	17	0.01	64	0.04	71	0.04	55	0.05	87	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		49	0.59	85	0.00	60	0.05	60	0.05	37	0.25	63	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		24	0.65	28	0.00	24	0.14	24	0.51	13	0.57	22	0.54
Shebanova 2002		6	0.72	37	0.00	6	0.16	5	0.65	5	0.62	7	0.63
Smith 1975		46	0.59	68	0.00	47	0.06	53	0.06	17	0.37	52	0.15
Sokolov 2002		51	0.58	4	0.03	41	0.07	41	0.19	18	0.42	41	0.28
Sztompka 1959		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Tomsic 1995		82	0.42	72	0.00	79	0.03	86	0.03	57	0.06	83	0.04
Uninsky 1932		20	0.66	31	0.00	22	0.11	18	0.53	4	0.61	17	0.57
Uninsky 1971		22	0.66	50	0.00	9	0.11	14	0.57	6	0.63	12	0.60
Wasowski 1980		18	0.67	16	0.01	12	0.10	17	0.54	3	0.65	14	0.59
Zak 1937		35	0.61	61	0.00	40	0.10	37	0.26	33	0.26	43	0.26
Zak 1951		42	0.60	77	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.15	59	0.06	69	0.09
Average		1	0.82	1	0.66	1	0.66	1	0.84	8	0.61	2	0.72
Random 1		91	-0.09	86	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	28	0.20	85	0.04
Random 2		89	-0.06	75	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.06	87	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	29	0.22	75	0.07

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).