Biret 1990

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		16	0.70	24	0.01	31	0.06	27	0.25	28	0.24	29	0.24
Anderszewski 2003		50	0.59	57	0.00	37	0.05	41	0.14	22	0.32	33	0.21
Ashkenazy 1981		22	0.68	39	0.00	11	0.08	8	0.45	14	0.39	10	0.42
Bacha 2000		20	0.69	20	0.01	27	0.08	31	0.19	2	0.56	17	0.33
Badura 1965		80	0.41	59	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	69	0.04	81	0.03
Barbosa 1983		54	0.57	63	0.00	14	0.08	16	0.31	9	0.44	13	0.37
Biret 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blet 2003		27	0.66	58	0.00	46	0.05	48	0.05	43	0.11	54	0.07
Block 1995		70	0.48	88	0.00	84	0.02	81	0.02	72	0.03	89	0.02
Blumental 1952		79	0.42	55	0.00	54	0.04	56	0.04	25	0.21	49	0.09
Boshniakovich 1969		55	0.57	75	0.00	80	0.03	71	0.03	74	0.03	82	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		30	0.64	21	0.01	50	0.04	53	0.04	44	0.10	58	0.06
Bunin 1987		46	0.61	67	0.00	53	0.05	49	0.05	64	0.04	71	0.04
Bunin 1987b		45	0.61	76	0.00	52	0.04	54	0.04	60	0.04	64	0.04
Chiu 1999		53	0.58	6	0.04	8	0.09	6	0.47	8	0.53	5	0.50
Cohen 1997		78	0.42	38	0.00	62	0.04	61	0.04	11	0.43	46	0.13
Cortot 1951		31	0.64	66	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	25	0.31	41	0.19
Csalog 1996		38	0.62	71	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	14	0.46	42	0.18
Czerny 1949		28	0.66	34	0.00	39	0.05	33	0.19	33	0.24	36	0.21
Czerny 1990		17	0.70	27	0.01	40	0.05	35	0.18	48	0.05	50	0.09
Duchoud 2007		3	0.79	11	0.02	2	0.13	3	0.59	3	0.52	3	0.55
Ezaki 2006		14	0.71	19	0.01	24	0.10	15	0.33	43	0.09	43	0.17
Falvay 1989		41	0.62	5	0.04	17	0.07	20	0.30	31	0.19	28	0.24
Farrell 1958		5	0.77	18	0.01	19	0.06	21	0.28	4	0.50	12	0.37
Ferenczy 1958		42	0.62	64	0.00	36	0.06	43	0.12	22	0.38	35	0.21
Fliere 1977		7	0.76	84	0.00	21	0.07	19	0.30	40	0.13	37	0.20
Fou 1978		64	0.53	42	0.00	49	0.05	47	0.05	49	0.06	59	0.05
Francois 1956		35	0.63	16	0.01	38	0.05	40	0.15	38	0.13	45	0.14
Friedman 1923		88	0.16	85	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	77	0.04	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.17	78	0.00	87	0.02	80	0.02	77	0.04	83	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.31	69	0.00	69	0.03	74	0.03	48	0.05	68	0.04
Garcia 2007		67	0.51	32	0.00	67	0.04	58	0.04	25	0.29	47	0.11
Garcia 2007b		84	0.35	25	0.01	77	0.02	82	0.02	11	0.27	57	0.07
Gierzod 1998		13	0.72	26	0.01	16	0.07	14	0.34	13	0.33	18	0.33
Gornostaeva 1994		15	0.71	4	0.04	45	0.06	45	0.11	34	0.19	44	0.14
Groot 1988		47	0.61	72	0.00	71	0.03	77	0.03	87	0.02	91	0.02
Harasiewicz 1955		83	0.37	65	0.00	56	0.04	57	0.04	70	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1993		66	0.51	86	0.00	13	0.08	28	0.24	9	0.45	19	0.33
Hatto 1997		48	0.60	3	0.05	6	0.12	12	0.35	9	0.47	11	0.41
Horowitz 1949		62	0.53	79	0.00	72	0.02	85	0.02	59	0.04	76	0.03
Indjic 1988		61	0.54	60	0.00	10	0.08	24	0.26	9	0.46	15	0.35
Kapell 1951		8	0.75	73	0.00	15	0.07	10	0.43	21	0.42	9	0.42
Kissin 1993		59	0.55	46	0.00	59	0.04	55	0.04	52	0.05	67	0.04
Kushner 1989		9	0.73	52	0.00	42	0.07	36	0.16	36	0.22	40	0.19
Luisada 1991		18	0.70	2	0.08	7	0.08	11	0.39	5	0.46	8	0.42
Lushtak 2004		34	0.63	7	0.04	5	0.12	7	0.46	17	0.40	7	0.43
Malcuzynski 1961		19	0.70	54	0.00	55	0.04	51	0.04	51	0.05	65	0.04
Magaloff 1978		32	0.64	43	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	70	0.03	62	0.04
Magin 1975		72	0.47	61	0.00	73	0.03	73	0.03	59	0.04	74	0.03
Michalowski 1933		77	0.43	62	0.00	34	0.05	38	0.16	23	0.39	27	0.25
Milkina 1970		26	0.67	8	0.03	18	0.06	32	0.19	26	0.26	31	0.22
Mohovich 1999		29	0.65	80	0.00	60	0.04	52	0.04	49	0.04	70	0.04
Moravec 1969		37	0.63	70	0.00	32	0.05	37	0.16	17	0.39	26	0.25
Morozova 2008		52	0.58	81	0.00	29	0.06	26	0.25	23	0.18	34	0.21
Neighaus 1950		12	0.72	49	0.00	20	0.06	13	0.34	29	0.31	20	0.32
Niedzielski 1931		57	0.56	28	0.01	75	0.03	69	0.03	29	0.21	52	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		1	0.83	1	0.32	1	0.32	2	0.60	2	0.62	1	0.61
Osinska 1989		6	0.76	23	0.01	9	0.10	4	0.52	2	0.59	2	0.55
Pachmann 1927		74	0.44	45	0.00	70	0.02	84	0.02	64	0.04	78	0.03
Paderewski 1930		60	0.55	14	0.01	66	0.04	64	0.04	52	0.04	66	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		76	0.44	77	0.00	74	0.03	72	0.03	73	0.03	72	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		33	0.63	40	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	17	0.32	38	0.20
Poblocka 1999		4	0.78	17	0.01	4	0.12	5	0.49	6	0.53	4	0.51
Rabcewiczowa 1932		24	0.68	13	0.02	22	0.08	18	0.30	13	0.44	14	0.36
Rachmaninoff 1923		65	0.52	36	0.00	57	0.04	60	0.04	62	0.04	63	0.04
Rangell 2001		25	0.67	22	0.01	51	0.04	59	0.04	42	0.12	56	0.07
Richter 1976		73	0.45	50	0.00	76	0.03	66	0.03	59	0.04	77	0.03
Rosen 1989		10	0.73	29	0.01	41	0.06	34	0.18	14	0.46	23	0.29
Rosenthal 1930		58	0.56	68	0.00	79	0.03	70	0.03	52	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.39	74	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	62	0.04	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.41	82	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	63	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.50	87	0.00	81	0.03	75	0.03	65	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.47	47	0.00	82	0.02	83	0.02	50	0.05	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		86	0.22	53	0.00	86	0.03	76	0.03	71	0.03	73	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		75	0.44	51	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	24	0.36	48	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		63	0.53	33	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	33	0.20	51	0.09
Rubinstein 1966		40	0.62	83	0.00	64	0.03	67	0.03	40	0.15	55	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		51	0.59	89	0.00	23	0.08	17	0.31	25	0.29	21	0.30
Shebanova 2002		21	0.69	30	0.01	30	0.06	22	0.27	22	0.42	16	0.34
Smith 1975		23	0.68	15	0.01	12	0.09	9	0.43	31	0.20	22	0.29
Sokolov 2002		11	0.72	35	0.00	33	0.05	29	0.22	35	0.25	30	0.23
Sztompka 1959		49	0.60	44	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	43	0.14	53	0.07
Tomsic 1995		39	0.62	56	0.00	58	0.03	65	0.03	70	0.03	75	0.03
Uninsky 1932		68	0.50	41	0.00	65	0.03	68	0.03	54	0.05	69	0.04
Uninsky 1971		43	0.62	31	0.00	35	0.05	39	0.15	31	0.29	32	0.21
Wasowski 1980		44	0.61	37	0.00	28	0.06	30	0.19	6	0.38	25	0.27
Zak 1937		36	0.63	12	0.02	26	0.08	25	0.25	23	0.31	24	0.28
Zak 1951		56	0.57	9	0.03	25	0.05	23	0.26	43	0.15	39	0.20
Average		2	0.83	10	0.03	3	0.22	1	0.65	21	0.32	6	0.46
Random 1		90	-0.04	48	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	63	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.08	90	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	43	0.11	60	0.05
Random 3		89	0.13	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	43	0.11	61	0.05

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).