Average

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		22	0.81	52	0.00	34	0.09	31	0.24	5	0.47	34	0.34
Anderszewski 2003		58	0.69	17	0.01	22	0.06	37	0.18	7	0.54	37	0.31
Ashkenazy 1981		23	0.81	9	0.04	9	0.14	4	0.58	1	0.71	6	0.64
Bacha 2000		67	0.65	71	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	17	0.40	73	0.11
Badura 1965		69	0.65	67	0.00	51	0.04	54	0.04	5	0.57	50	0.15
Barbosa 1983		62	0.67	61	0.00	40	0.06	39	0.15	1	0.61	39	0.30
Biret 1990		17	0.83	27	0.00	26	0.08	21	0.32	1	0.65	18	0.46
Blet 2003		19	0.82	20	0.01	33	0.07	23	0.30	1	0.63	22	0.43
Block 1995		66	0.66	42	0.00	76	0.03	69	0.03	24	0.28	82	0.09
Blumental 1952		79	0.51	60	0.00	67	0.04	52	0.04	16	0.30	78	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		39	0.75	24	0.01	59	0.04	62	0.04	7	0.52	54	0.14
Brailowsky 1960		40	0.75	73	0.00	69	0.03	81	0.03	10	0.45	64	0.12
Bunin 1987		25	0.81	76	0.00	31	0.08	27	0.28	2	0.58	29	0.40
Bunin 1987b		24	0.81	86	0.00	30	0.07	26	0.28	2	0.58	27	0.40
Chiu 1999		70	0.63	63	0.00	50	0.04	61	0.04	5	0.56	48	0.15
Cohen 1997		83	0.41	65	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	28	0.27	83	0.09
Cortot 1951		50	0.73	68	0.00	49	0.04	56	0.04	11	0.46	55	0.14
Csalog 1996		75	0.56	33	0.00	84	0.03	72	0.03	24	0.35	81	0.10
Czerny 1949		32	0.77	22	0.01	18	0.06	19	0.33	3	0.65	17	0.46
Czerny 1990		4	0.87	39	0.00	8	0.12	9	0.49	2	0.62	9	0.55
Duchoud 2007		20	0.82	40	0.00	20	0.06	14	0.36	1	0.64	13	0.48
Ezaki 2006		3	0.89	5	0.07	4	0.19	7	0.54	1	0.70	7	0.61
Falvay 1989		18	0.82	19	0.01	17	0.06	20	0.32	6	0.56	23	0.42
Farrell 1958		33	0.77	62	0.00	65	0.03	66	0.03	3	0.52	66	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		57	0.70	57	0.00	68	0.04	50	0.04	19	0.39	69	0.12
Fliere 1977		1	0.91	8	0.04	3	0.15	3	0.58	1	0.74	2	0.66
Fou 1978		53	0.72	16	0.01	35	0.06	34	0.19	11	0.48	38	0.30
Francois 1956		28	0.79	12	0.02	15	0.08	17	0.34	2	0.61	19	0.46
Friedman 1923		88	0.20	79	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	36	0.21	86	0.08
Friedman 1923b		87	0.21	77	0.00	86	0.03	79	0.03	31	0.22	85	0.08
Friedman 1930		82	0.44	49	0.00	72	0.04	63	0.04	16	0.40	61	0.13
Garcia 2007		81	0.49	87	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	10	0.43	77	0.11
Garcia 2007b		86	0.27	80	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	33	0.13	88	0.06
Gierzod 1998		16	0.83	14	0.01	19	0.08	18	0.33	2	0.58	21	0.44
Gornostaeva 1994		15	0.83	10	0.03	29	0.07	28	0.27	1	0.59	30	0.40
Groot 1988		9	0.85	7	0.05	16	0.09	16	0.35	1	0.66	14	0.48
Harasiewicz 1955		63	0.67	13	0.02	7	0.15	8	0.50	1	0.61	10	0.55
Hatto 1993		78	0.51	31	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	4	0.56	46	0.21
Hatto 1997		73	0.59	74	0.00	37	0.07	35	0.19	3	0.62	33	0.34
Horowitz 1949		55	0.72	50	0.00	55	0.03	73	0.03	7	0.47	67	0.12
Indjic 1988		77	0.54	34	0.00	46	0.08	46	0.08	4	0.59	45	0.22
Kapell 1951		21	0.82	35	0.00	38	0.07	36	0.19	1	0.59	35	0.33
Kissin 1993		34	0.77	41	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.10	10	0.49	44	0.22
Kushner 1989		8	0.86	23	0.01	14	0.11	22	0.31	1	0.62	20	0.44
Luisada 1991		43	0.75	18	0.01	39	0.06	40	0.14	2	0.53	40	0.27
Lushtak 2004		27	0.79	3	0.08	5	0.17	5	0.58	1	0.72	5	0.65
Malcuzynski 1961		2	0.91	4	0.07	6	0.15	6	0.58	1	0.73	4	0.65
Magaloff 1978		11	0.84	2	0.10	10	0.12	10	0.44	1	0.69	8	0.55
Magin 1975		61	0.68	72	0.00	54	0.03	85	0.03	7	0.38	74	0.11
Michalowski 1933		80	0.49	55	0.00	61	0.04	57	0.04	19	0.42	60	0.13
Milkina 1970		29	0.79	30	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.11	6	0.50	43	0.23
Mohovich 1999		5	0.87	15	0.01	13	0.10	11	0.41	1	0.63	11	0.51
Moravec 1969		49	0.74	56	0.00	70	0.03	70	0.03	10	0.47	63	0.12
Morozova 2008		44	0.75	58	0.00	23	0.05	30	0.26	1	0.62	28	0.40
Neighaus 1950		7	0.86	6	0.06	2	0.11	2	0.60	1	0.75	1	0.67
Niedzielski 1931		74	0.59	47	0.00	81	0.04	59	0.04	7	0.41	57	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		13	0.83	26	0.00	27	0.07	29	0.27	3	0.61	26	0.41
Osinska 1989		26	0.81	53	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.11	1	0.60	41	0.26
Pachmann 1927		76	0.56	88	0.00	78	0.04	53	0.04	21	0.41	59	0.13
Paderewski 1930		46	0.74	69	0.00	66	0.04	60	0.04	7	0.44	58	0.13
Perlemuter 1992		37	0.76	81	0.00	28	0.06	33	0.23	2	0.57	31	0.36
Pierdomenico 2008		51	0.73	83	0.00	58	0.04	51	0.04	6	0.46	51	0.14
Poblocka 1999		14	0.83	21	0.01	12	0.12	13	0.36	2	0.59	16	0.46
Rabcewiczowa 1932		54	0.72	84	0.00	62	0.03	68	0.03	12	0.45	65	0.12
Rachmaninoff 1923		59	0.69	51	0.00	32	0.06	32	0.23	3	0.54	32	0.35
Rangell 2001		48	0.74	48	0.00	60	0.03	65	0.03	7	0.42	79	0.11
Richter 1976		56	0.70	38	0.00	64	0.03	75	0.03	10	0.40	75	0.11
Rosen 1989		31	0.78	25	0.01	36	0.07	38	0.17	3	0.64	36	0.33
Rosenthal 1930		47	0.74	85	0.00	57	0.04	55	0.04	3	0.57	49	0.15
Rosenthal 1931		71	0.62	64	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	9	0.49	68	0.12
Rosenthal 1931b		72	0.60	75	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	6	0.51	72	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		41	0.75	54	0.00	56	0.03	76	0.03	6	0.59	62	0.13
Rosenthal 1931d		68	0.65	78	0.00	75	0.03	78	0.03	6	0.47	71	0.12
Rossi 2007		85	0.36	89	0.00	82	0.03	88	0.03	23	0.19	84	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		84	0.39	44	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	39	0.16	87	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		65	0.66	32	0.00	79	0.04	58	0.04	28	0.29	80	0.11
Rubinstein 1966		52	0.72	43	0.00	71	0.04	64	0.04	9	0.51	52	0.14
Schilhawsky 1960		30	0.79	11	0.03	11	0.10	12	0.39	1	0.62	12	0.49
Shebanova 2002		45	0.75	59	0.00	63	0.03	67	0.03	12	0.48	70	0.12
Smith 1975		6	0.86	1	0.19	1	0.19	1	0.61	1	0.70	3	0.65
Sokolov 2002		10	0.85	29	0.00	24	0.05	25	0.28	1	0.59	24	0.41
Sztompka 1959		42	0.75	36	0.00	53	0.03	71	0.03	15	0.43	76	0.11
Tomsic 1995		12	0.84	28	0.00	25	0.05	24	0.29	4	0.57	25	0.41
Uninsky 1932		64	0.67	37	0.00	52	0.04	48	0.04	8	0.46	53	0.14
Uninsky 1971		38	0.75	66	0.00	48	0.05	47	0.05	6	0.49	47	0.16
Wasowski 1980		60	0.69	70	0.00	47	0.04	49	0.04	1	0.45	56	0.13
Zak 1937		36	0.77	46	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.12	4	0.54	42	0.25
Zak 1951		35	0.77	45	0.00	21	0.06	15	0.36	3	0.61	15	0.47
Average		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Random 1		90	-0.08	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	72	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.10	91	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	71	0.02	90	0.02
Random 3		89	0.08	82	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	63	0.04	89	0.03

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).