Niedzielski 1931

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