Anderszewski 2003

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		71	0.36	60	0.00	72	0.02	83	0.02	53	0.04	79	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.73	5	0.04	7	0.16	6	0.55	9	0.48	6	0.51
Bacha 2000		63	0.41	44	0.00	71	0.03	71	0.03	43	0.11	52	0.06
Badura 1965		73	0.35	37	0.00	77	0.03	74	0.03	70	0.03	80	0.03
Barbosa 1983		81	0.28	79	0.00	75	0.02	82	0.02	72	0.03	85	0.02
Biret 1990		20	0.59	50	0.00	24	0.06	21	0.32	40	0.14	26	0.21
Blet 2003		32	0.54	26	0.01	32	0.06	28	0.24	39	0.12	29	0.17
Block 1995		47	0.49	70	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.11	39	0.13	34	0.12
Blumental 1952		74	0.35	49	0.00	58	0.04	56	0.04	52	0.04	66	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		60	0.43	34	0.00	70	0.04	60	0.04	52	0.05	67	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		35	0.53	20	0.01	48	0.04	49	0.04	51	0.05	60	0.04
Bunin 1987		19	0.59	82	0.00	26	0.11	17	0.39	25	0.32	16	0.35
Bunin 1987b		18	0.59	89	0.00	25	0.07	16	0.39	25	0.33	15	0.36
Chiu 1999		79	0.29	84	0.00	80	0.03	70	0.03	78	0.03	72	0.03
Cohen 1997		78	0.30	21	0.01	81	0.03	69	0.03	42	0.12	54	0.06
Cortot 1951		39	0.52	38	0.00	57	0.03	67	0.03	40	0.16	50	0.07
Csalog 1996		87	0.17	46	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	46	0.07	63	0.04
Czerny 1949		55	0.46	19	0.01	33	0.07	32	0.19	39	0.16	30	0.17
Czerny 1990		22	0.58	67	0.00	28	0.06	20	0.32	38	0.13	27	0.20
Duchoud 2007		6	0.70	15	0.01	9	0.15	8	0.52	12	0.45	8	0.48
Ezaki 2006		16	0.60	65	0.00	29	0.07	23	0.30	59	0.04	36	0.11
Falvay 1989		62	0.41	71	0.00	54	0.04	52	0.04	71	0.04	61	0.04
Farrell 1958		31	0.54	90	0.00	61	0.03	62	0.03	45	0.06	62	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		26	0.55	11	0.02	31	0.06	34	0.18	16	0.40	23	0.27
Fliere 1977		23	0.57	62	0.00	45	0.04	57	0.04	62	0.04	59	0.04
Fou 1978		76	0.33	41	0.00	82	0.02	81	0.02	62	0.05	74	0.03
Francois 1956		67	0.40	55	0.00	52	0.04	48	0.04	65	0.04	69	0.04
Friedman 1923		83	0.23	80	0.00	68	0.03	77	0.03	40	0.16	51	0.07
Friedman 1923b		84	0.23	85	0.00	69	0.03	68	0.03	42	0.15	49	0.07
Friedman 1930		65	0.40	72	0.00	62	0.04	59	0.04	38	0.13	48	0.07
Garcia 2007		46	0.49	57	0.00	22	0.06	30	0.22	4	0.51	17	0.33
Garcia 2007b		64	0.40	45	0.00	23	0.08	33	0.19	8	0.39	24	0.27
Gierzod 1998		13	0.61	12	0.02	27	0.09	15	0.43	30	0.19	21	0.29
Gornostaeva 1994		27	0.55	22	0.01	49	0.03	61	0.03	63	0.03	82	0.03
Groot 1988		61	0.42	28	0.00	53	0.04	46	0.04	63	0.04	68	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		33	0.54	6	0.04	14	0.22	14	0.46	13	0.38	13	0.42
Hatto 1993		7	0.69	1	0.23	1	0.23	4	0.56	4	0.55	2	0.55
Hatto 1997		8	0.69	14	0.01	6	0.23	1	0.61	4	0.57	1	0.59
Horowitz 1949		66	0.40	35	0.00	73	0.02	84	0.02	56	0.04	77	0.03
Indjic 1988		10	0.67	81	0.00	5	0.14	5	0.55	5	0.54	3	0.54
Kapell 1951		11	0.67	8	0.02	12	0.14	7	0.54	8	0.51	4	0.52
Kissin 1993		70	0.39	53	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	70	0.03	78	0.03
Kushner 1989		12	0.62	25	0.01	17	0.09	26	0.26	51	0.04	40	0.10
Luisada 1991		2	0.74	17	0.01	8	0.23	12	0.49	3	0.49	7	0.49
Lushtak 2004		45	0.50	30	0.00	18	0.06	19	0.34	33	0.18	25	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		24	0.56	39	0.00	40	0.05	35	0.15	55	0.04	42	0.08
Magaloff 1978		21	0.58	47	0.00	35	0.06	27	0.24	57	0.04	39	0.10
Magin 1975		1	0.75	4	0.08	4	0.11	9	0.51	3	0.43	10	0.47
Michalowski 1933		14	0.60	16	0.01	11	0.16	2	0.57	5	0.47	5	0.52
Milkina 1970		56	0.46	42	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	71	0.04	76	0.03
Mohovich 1999		36	0.53	27	0.01	20	0.07	25	0.26	39	0.11	31	0.17
Moravec 1969		69	0.39	24	0.01	67	0.03	72	0.03	69	0.03	70	0.03
Morozova 2008		29	0.54	61	0.00	30	0.08	36	0.15	57	0.04	44	0.08
Neighaus 1950		40	0.51	86	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.13	52	0.05	45	0.08
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.44	56	0.00	56	0.04	50	0.04	16	0.28	37	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		9	0.67	43	0.00	15	0.19	18	0.38	23	0.25	19	0.31
Osinska 1989		57	0.44	77	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	51	0.04	71	0.03
Pachmann 1927		88	0.14	66	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	76	0.03	84	0.02
Paderewski 1930		41	0.51	59	0.00	60	0.04	54	0.04	33	0.15	43	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		54	0.47	83	0.00	34	0.07	29	0.22	40	0.11	33	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		53	0.47	73	0.00	64	0.03	64	0.03	80	0.03	73	0.03
Poblocka 1999		15	0.60	7	0.03	16	0.11	13	0.48	19	0.33	14	0.40
Rabcewiczowa 1932		44	0.50	63	0.00	63	0.04	53	0.04	47	0.06	57	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		50	0.48	87	0.00	37	0.05	37	0.15	54	0.04	41	0.08
Rangell 2001		49	0.48	31	0.00	65	0.03	65	0.03	64	0.04	83	0.03
Richter 1976		34	0.53	51	0.00	19	0.06	24	0.29	14	0.34	18	0.31
Rosen 1989		52	0.48	74	0.00	66	0.04	51	0.04	76	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		25	0.56	33	0.00	50	0.04	45	0.04	50	0.05	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		28	0.54	3	0.11	3	0.11	31	0.21	20	0.36	22	0.27
Rosenthal 1931b		38	0.52	36	0.00	38	0.05	38	0.13	26	0.24	28	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		37	0.53	23	0.01	51	0.04	55	0.04	36	0.17	46	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		51	0.48	10	0.02	39	0.05	42	0.10	33	0.14	35	0.12
Rossi 2007		80	0.28	40	0.00	47	0.03	66	0.03	41	0.08	55	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		82	0.28	52	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	41	0.13	56	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		86	0.21	68	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	69	0.03	90	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		68	0.40	32	0.00	84	0.02	79	0.02	72	0.03	86	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		17	0.60	2	0.18	2	0.17	10	0.50	12	0.38	11	0.44
Shebanova 2002		72	0.36	75	0.00	83	0.02	80	0.02	70	0.03	87	0.02
Smith 1975		5	0.72	9	0.02	10	0.15	3	0.57	9	0.33	12	0.43
Sokolov 2002		4	0.72	64	0.00	13	0.15	11	0.50	11	0.44	9	0.47
Sztompka 1959		42	0.51	69	0.00	55	0.04	58	0.04	41	0.14	47	0.07
Tomsic 1995		48	0.49	13	0.02	43	0.05	43	0.10	56	0.04	53	0.06
Uninsky 1932		58	0.44	78	0.00	59	0.04	47	0.04	49	0.05	64	0.04
Uninsky 1971		30	0.54	18	0.01	21	0.07	22	0.31	29	0.32	20	0.31
Wasowski 1980		43	0.51	54	0.00	36	0.05	40	0.12	26	0.22	32	0.16
Zak 1937		77	0.33	58	0.00	74	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.03
Zak 1951		75	0.34	48	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.07	68	0.04	58	0.05
Random 1		89	-0.08	76	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	71	0.03	89	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.09	88	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	72	0.02	88	0.02
Random 3		85	0.22	29	0.00	46	0.03	63	0.03	12	0.43	38	0.11

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).