Block 1995

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