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		26	0.49	78	0.00	75	0.02	73	0.02	68	0.03	85	0.02
Anderszewski 2003		41	0.44	44	0.00	9	0.10	16	0.28	50	0.04	19	0.11
Ashkenazy 1981		58	0.37	36	0.00	14	0.06	19	0.27	72	0.03	26	0.09
Bacha 2000		32	0.47	72	0.00	30	0.06	30	0.18	65	0.04	28	0.08
Badura 1965		72	0.26	64	0.00	81	0.02	82	0.02	81	0.02	86	0.02
Barbosa 1983		66	0.34	25	0.01	80	0.02	84	0.02	66	0.04	66	0.03
Biret 1990		9	0.56	20	0.01	33	0.04	28	0.21	68	0.03	34	0.08
Blet 2003		48	0.42	32	0.01	74	0.03	66	0.03	81	0.03	67	0.03
Block 1995		39	0.45	6	0.04	20	0.08	21	0.26	55	0.04	24	0.10
Blumental 1952		79	0.21	5	0.04	13	0.07	37	0.16	56	0.04	33	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.43	22	0.01	48	0.04	60	0.04	84	0.02	71	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		40	0.45	35	0.01	31	0.05	20	0.26	54	0.05	17	0.11
Bunin 1987		62	0.37	49	0.00	71	0.03	70	0.03	70	0.04	72	0.03
Bunin 1987b		60	0.37	70	0.00	72	0.03	62	0.03	70	0.03	60	0.03
Chiu 1999		69	0.27	42	0.00	52	0.04	54	0.04	62	0.04	48	0.04
Cohen 1997		84	0.09	67	0.00	68	0.02	74	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02
Cortot 1951		34	0.47	7	0.03	15	0.06	17	0.27	50	0.06	12	0.13
Csalog 1996		19	0.53	84	0.00	24	0.08	34	0.17	37	0.22	6	0.19
Czerny 1949		22	0.52	27	0.01	49	0.04	56	0.04	57	0.05	51	0.04
Czerny 1990		8	0.57	16	0.01	28	0.06	27	0.22	45	0.06	20	0.11
Duchoud 2007		14	0.55	57	0.00	29	0.05	25	0.23	69	0.03	32	0.08
Ezaki 2006		50	0.41	89	0.00	62	0.04	57	0.04	86	0.02	58	0.03
Falvay 1989		31	0.48	14	0.01	10	0.08	11	0.36	69	0.04	13	0.12
Farrell 1958		3	0.60	47	0.00	21	0.07	12	0.36	57	0.04	14	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		54	0.40	40	0.00	66	0.02	77	0.02	73	0.03	84	0.02
Fliere 1977		12	0.55	85	0.00	51	0.04	52	0.04	85	0.03	59	0.03
Fou 1978		80	0.20	53	0.00	78	0.02	71	0.02	79	0.03	79	0.02
Francois 1956		2	0.61	8	0.02	12	0.08	26	0.22	57	0.04	27	0.09
Friedman 1923		88	0.00	43	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	62	0.05	76	0.03
Friedman 1923b		86	0.03	10	0.02	86	0.02	81	0.02	57	0.05	73	0.03
Friedman 1930		83	0.13	30	0.01	77	0.02	79	0.02	60	0.05	68	0.03
Garcia 2007		65	0.34	3	0.06	5	0.09	13	0.35	11	0.40	3	0.37
Garcia 2007b		87	0.02	76	0.00	34	0.05	41	0.10	62	0.03	47	0.05
Gierzod 1998		7	0.58	15	0.01	11	0.09	10	0.37	56	0.04	16	0.12
Gornostaeva 1994		21	0.53	86	0.00	79	0.02	76	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02
Groot 1988		11	0.55	87	0.00	50	0.03	64	0.03	84	0.03	75	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		78	0.21	56	0.00	32	0.06	29	0.19	81	0.03	35	0.08
Hatto 1993		81	0.19	37	0.00	36	0.05	33	0.17	65	0.03	40	0.07
Hatto 1997		76	0.23	17	0.01	42	0.04	40	0.12	69	0.03	43	0.06
Horowitz 1949		10	0.56	9	0.02	4	0.10	2	0.53	30	0.21	4	0.33
Indjic 1988		77	0.22	13	0.02	37	0.06	31	0.17	58	0.03	38	0.07
Kapell 1951		4	0.60	23	0.01	22	0.08	9	0.39	55	0.04	15	0.12
Kissin 1993		61	0.37	73	0.00	55	0.04	53	0.04	74	0.03	64	0.03
Kushner 1989		23	0.51	58	0.00	39	0.04	39	0.12	62	0.04	36	0.07
Luisada 1991		53	0.41	34	0.01	19	0.07	24	0.24	59	0.04	21	0.10
Lushtak 2004		70	0.27	71	0.00	45	0.04	50	0.04	87	0.02	70	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		13	0.55	39	0.00	46	0.04	61	0.04	82	0.03	61	0.03
Magaloff 1978		20	0.53	61	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.10	75	0.03	45	0.05
Magin 1975		64	0.35	24	0.01	16	0.05	18	0.27	66	0.03	25	0.09
Michalowski 1933		75	0.23	60	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	49	0.06	37	0.07
Milkina 1970		18	0.54	63	0.00	35	0.05	35	0.16	62	0.04	30	0.08
Mohovich 1999		24	0.51	52	0.00	56	0.05	47	0.05	79	0.03	53	0.04
Moravec 1969		1	0.69	1	0.31	1	0.30	1	0.61	8	0.51	1	0.56
Morozova 2008		71	0.26	48	0.00	38	0.05	32	0.17	86	0.02	42	0.06
Neighaus 1950		33	0.47	18	0.01	53	0.05	49	0.05	60	0.04	54	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ohlsson 1999		5	0.59	38	0.00	23	0.08	8	0.39	64	0.03	18	0.11
Osinska 1989		28	0.49	77	0.00	69	0.03	65	0.03	83	0.02	77	0.02
Pachmann 1927		73	0.25	28	0.01	83	0.02	87	0.02	82	0.03	81	0.02
Paderewski 1930		43	0.43	19	0.01	76	0.02	80	0.02	71	0.02	80	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		63	0.36	62	0.00	25	0.07	23	0.24	85	0.03	29	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		47	0.42	55	0.00	27	0.06	36	0.16	43	0.10	11	0.13
Poblocka 1999		17	0.54	65	0.00	26	0.07	14	0.33	47	0.05	10	0.13
Rabcewiczowa 1932		51	0.41	80	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	82	0.02	78	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		29	0.49	4	0.04	3	0.10	7	0.41	38	0.11	5	0.21
Rangell 2001		27	0.49	83	0.00	63	0.04	59	0.04	74	0.03	74	0.03
Richter 1976		45	0.43	54	0.00	17	0.06	15	0.31	66	0.03	23	0.10
Rosen 1989		59	0.37	45	0.00	85	0.02	78	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		35	0.46	66	0.00	64	0.04	51	0.04	68	0.03	69	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		68	0.32	88	0.00	67	0.02	75	0.02	73	0.03	82	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		67	0.33	81	0.00	59	0.05	46	0.05	64	0.04	55	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		36	0.46	75	0.00	58	0.05	48	0.05	79	0.03	56	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		42	0.43	79	0.00	54	0.04	58	0.04	46	0.06	46	0.05
Rossi 2007		82	0.13	26	0.01	47	0.03	67	0.03	42	0.08	44	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		74	0.25	33	0.01	43	0.04	43	0.08	68	0.04	41	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		37	0.45	69	0.00	65	0.03	68	0.03	58	0.05	57	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		57	0.38	46	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	79	0.03	83	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		15	0.54	2	0.08	2	0.16	4	0.51	47	0.07	7	0.19
Shebanova 2002		38	0.45	41	0.00	41	0.04	38	0.12	55	0.05	31	0.08
Smith 1975		49	0.42	51	0.00	57	0.05	45	0.05	71	0.03	49	0.04
Sokolov 2002		25	0.51	59	0.00	18	0.06	22	0.25	55	0.04	22	0.10
Sztompka 1959		56	0.38	12	0.02	70	0.02	72	0.02	67	0.04	63	0.03
Tomsic 1995		52	0.41	74	0.00	61	0.03	63	0.03	64	0.04	62	0.03
Uninsky 1932		55	0.39	21	0.01	60	0.04	55	0.04	65	0.04	50	0.04
Uninsky 1971		46	0.42	68	0.00	73	0.03	69	0.03	76	0.03	65	0.03
Wasowski 1980		6	0.58	11	0.02	8	0.12	3	0.53	11	0.34	2	0.42
Zak 1937		16	0.54	29	0.01	6	0.09	5	0.50	53	0.05	8	0.16
Zak 1951		30	0.48	90	0.00	7	0.09	6	0.45	56	0.05	9	0.15
Random 1		89	-0.01	82	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	31	0.18	52	0.04
Random 2		85	0.06	31	0.01	88	0.02	83	0.02	23	0.26	39	0.07
Random 3		90	-0.06	50	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	79	0.02	90	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).