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		72	0.36	60	0.00	73	0.02	84	0.02	54	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	10	0.48	6	0.51
Bacha 2000		64	0.41	45	0.00	72	0.03	72	0.03	44	0.11	53	0.06
Badura 1965		74	0.35	38	0.00	78	0.03	75	0.03	71	0.03	80	0.03
Barbosa 1983		82	0.28	80	0.00	76	0.02	83	0.02	73	0.03	86	0.02
Biret 1990		21	0.59	52	0.00	25	0.06	22	0.32	41	0.14	27	0.21
Blet 2003		33	0.54	28	0.00	33	0.06	29	0.24	40	0.12	30	0.17
Block 1995		48	0.49	70	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.11	40	0.13	35	0.12
Blumental 1952		75	0.35	50	0.00	59	0.04	57	0.04	53	0.04	66	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		61	0.43	35	0.00	71	0.03	61	0.03	53	0.05	67	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		36	0.53	19	0.01	49	0.04	50	0.04	52	0.05	61	0.04
Bunin 1987		20	0.59	83	0.00	27	0.11	18	0.39	26	0.32	16	0.35
Bunin 1987b		19	0.59	90	0.00	26	0.07	17	0.39	26	0.33	15	0.36
Chiu 1999		80	0.29	85	0.00	81	0.03	71	0.03	79	0.03	71	0.03
Cohen 1997		79	0.30	22	0.01	82	0.03	70	0.03	43	0.12	55	0.06
Cortot 1951		40	0.52	39	0.00	58	0.03	68	0.03	41	0.16	51	0.07
Csalog 1996		88	0.17	47	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	47	0.07	63	0.04
Czerny 1949		56	0.46	20	0.01	34	0.07	33	0.19	40	0.16	31	0.17
Czerny 1990		23	0.58	67	0.00	29	0.06	21	0.32	39	0.13	28	0.20
Duchoud 2007		6	0.70	15	0.01	9	0.15	9	0.52	13	0.45	8	0.48
Ezaki 2006		17	0.60	68	0.00	30	0.07	24	0.30	60	0.04	37	0.11
Falvay 1989		63	0.41	71	0.00	55	0.04	53	0.04	72	0.03	72	0.03
Farrell 1958		32	0.54	91	0.00	62	0.03	63	0.03	46	0.06	62	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		27	0.55	11	0.02	32	0.06	35	0.18	16	0.40	24	0.27
Fliere 1977		24	0.57	63	0.00	46	0.04	58	0.04	63	0.04	60	0.04
Fou 1978		77	0.33	41	0.00	83	0.02	82	0.02	63	0.05	74	0.03
Francois 1956		68	0.40	59	0.00	53	0.04	49	0.04	66	0.04	68	0.04
Friedman 1923		84	0.23	81	0.00	69	0.03	78	0.03	41	0.16	52	0.07
Friedman 1923b		85	0.23	86	0.00	70	0.03	69	0.03	43	0.15	50	0.07
Friedman 1930		66	0.40	72	0.00	63	0.04	60	0.04	39	0.13	49	0.07
Garcia 2007		47	0.49	57	0.00	23	0.06	31	0.22	4	0.51	17	0.33
Garcia 2007b		65	0.40	46	0.00	24	0.07	34	0.19	8	0.39	25	0.27
Gierzod 1998		14	0.61	13	0.01	28	0.08	16	0.43	31	0.19	22	0.29
Gornostaeva 1994		28	0.55	23	0.01	50	0.03	62	0.03	64	0.03	82	0.03
Groot 1988		62	0.42	29	0.00	54	0.04	47	0.04	64	0.03	84	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		34	0.54	6	0.04	14	0.15	15	0.46	14	0.38	13	0.42
Hatto 1993		8	0.69	1	0.23	1	0.23	4	0.56	5	0.55	2	0.55
Hatto 1997		9	0.69	14	0.01	6	0.23	1	0.61	5	0.57	1	0.59
Horowitz 1949		67	0.40	36	0.00	74	0.02	85	0.02	57	0.04	77	0.03
Indjic 1988		11	0.67	82	0.00	5	0.14	5	0.55	6	0.54	3	0.54
Kapell 1951		12	0.67	9	0.02	15	0.22	8	0.54	9	0.51	4	0.52
Kissin 1993		71	0.39	54	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	71	0.03	78	0.03
Kushner 1989		13	0.62	26	0.01	18	0.09	27	0.26	52	0.04	40	0.10
Luisada 1991		2	0.74	17	0.01	8	0.23	13	0.49	4	0.49	7	0.49
Lushtak 2004		46	0.50	31	0.00	19	0.06	20	0.34	34	0.18	26	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		25	0.56	42	0.00	41	0.05	36	0.15	56	0.04	43	0.08
Magaloff 1978		22	0.58	48	0.00	36	0.06	28	0.24	58	0.03	41	0.08
Magin 1975		1	0.75	4	0.08	4	0.11	10	0.51	3	0.43	10	0.47
Michalowski 1933		15	0.60	16	0.01	11	0.16	2	0.57	5	0.47	5	0.52
Milkina 1970		57	0.46	43	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	72	0.04	76	0.03
Mohovich 1999		37	0.53	27	0.01	21	0.07	26	0.26	40	0.11	32	0.17
Moravec 1969		70	0.39	25	0.01	68	0.03	73	0.03	70	0.03	69	0.03
Morozova 2008		30	0.54	61	0.00	31	0.08	37	0.15	58	0.04	45	0.08
Neighaus 1950		41	0.51	87	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.13	53	0.05	46	0.08
Niedzielski 1931		60	0.44	56	0.00	57	0.04	51	0.04	17	0.28	38	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		10	0.67	44	0.00	16	0.19	19	0.38	24	0.25	19	0.31
Osinska 1989		58	0.44	78	0.00	77	0.03	74	0.03	52	0.04	70	0.03
Pachmann 1927		89	0.14	65	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.03	85	0.02
Paderewski 1930		42	0.51	62	0.00	61	0.04	55	0.04	34	0.15	44	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		55	0.47	84	0.00	35	0.07	30	0.22	41	0.11	34	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		54	0.47	73	0.00	65	0.03	65	0.03	81	0.03	73	0.03
Poblocka 1999		16	0.60	7	0.03	17	0.11	14	0.48	20	0.33	14	0.40
Rabcewiczowa 1932		45	0.50	64	0.00	64	0.04	54	0.04	48	0.06	58	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		51	0.48	88	0.00	38	0.05	38	0.15	55	0.04	42	0.08
Rangell 2001		50	0.48	33	0.00	66	0.03	66	0.03	65	0.04	83	0.03
Richter 1976		35	0.53	51	0.00	20	0.06	25	0.29	15	0.34	18	0.31
Rosen 1989		53	0.48	74	0.00	67	0.04	52	0.04	77	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		26	0.56	34	0.00	51	0.04	46	0.04	51	0.04	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		29	0.54	3	0.11	3	0.11	32	0.21	21	0.36	23	0.27
Rosenthal 1931b		39	0.52	37	0.00	39	0.05	39	0.13	27	0.24	29	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		38	0.53	24	0.01	52	0.04	56	0.04	37	0.17	47	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		52	0.48	10	0.02	40	0.05	43	0.10	34	0.14	36	0.12
Rossi 2007		81	0.28	40	0.00	48	0.03	67	0.03	42	0.08	56	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.28	53	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	42	0.13	57	0.05
Rubinstein 1952		87	0.21	69	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	70	0.03	91	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		69	0.40	32	0.00	85	0.02	80	0.02	73	0.03	87	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		18	0.60	2	0.17	2	0.17	11	0.50	13	0.38	11	0.44
Shebanova 2002		73	0.36	76	0.00	84	0.02	81	0.02	71	0.03	88	0.02
Smith 1975		5	0.72	8	0.02	10	0.14	3	0.57	10	0.33	12	0.43
Sokolov 2002		4	0.72	66	0.00	12	0.14	12	0.50	12	0.44	9	0.47
Sztompka 1959		43	0.51	75	0.00	56	0.04	59	0.04	42	0.14	48	0.07
Tomsic 1995		49	0.49	12	0.02	44	0.05	44	0.10	57	0.04	54	0.06
Uninsky 1932		59	0.44	79	0.00	60	0.04	48	0.04	50	0.05	64	0.04
Uninsky 1971		31	0.54	18	0.01	22	0.07	23	0.31	30	0.32	20	0.31
Wasowski 1980		44	0.51	55	0.00	37	0.05	41	0.12	27	0.22	33	0.16
Zak 1937		78	0.33	58	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	76	0.03	75	0.03
Zak 1951		76	0.34	49	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.07	69	0.04	59	0.05
Average		7	0.69	21	0.01	13	0.14	7	0.54	37	0.18	21	0.31
Random 1		90	-0.08	77	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	71	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.09	89	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	72	0.02	89	0.02
Random 3		86	0.22	30	0.00	47	0.03	64	0.03	12	0.43	39	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).