Blumental 1952

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

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).