Cortot 1951

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	0.64	65	0.00	37	0.07	29	0.29	44	0.09	32	0.16
Anderszewski 2003		47	0.52	45	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.16	68	0.03	49	0.07
Ashkenazy 1981		21	0.64	34	0.00	14	0.10	14	0.44	28	0.27	20	0.34
Bacha 2000		72	0.36	63	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	81	0.02	78	0.02
Badura 1965		36	0.57	10	0.02	21	0.09	23	0.32	21	0.36	19	0.34
Barbosa 1983		62	0.44	91	0.00	54	0.06	50	0.06	57	0.04	53	0.05
Biret 1990		19	0.64	71	0.00	24	0.06	25	0.31	44	0.12	31	0.19
Blet 2003		27	0.62	47	0.00	36	0.06	24	0.32	42	0.12	30	0.20
Block 1995		58	0.46	4	0.04	33	0.08	39	0.17	53	0.04	45	0.08
Blumental 1952		33	0.58	29	0.00	7	0.11	15	0.44	1	0.46	9	0.45
Boshniakovich 1969		42	0.54	24	0.01	59	0.07	47	0.07	67	0.03	55	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		69	0.37	53	0.00	82	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.03
Bunin 1987		38	0.56	88	0.00	42	0.07	42	0.16	53	0.05	43	0.09
Bunin 1987b		39	0.56	82	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.16	51	0.05	42	0.09
Chiu 1999		84	0.27	67	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	87	0.02	79	0.02
Cohen 1997		83	0.29	50	0.00	75	0.03	74	0.03	63	0.03	77	0.03
Cortot 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Csalog 1996		67	0.39	27	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.03
Czerny 1949		9	0.70	49	0.00	5	0.14	4	0.53	14	0.43	5	0.48
Czerny 1990		8	0.70	61	0.00	16	0.09	13	0.45	34	0.20	24	0.30
Duchoud 2007		12	0.67	39	0.00	22	0.07	20	0.38	26	0.37	16	0.37
Ezaki 2006		29	0.61	54	0.00	39	0.08	31	0.26	72	0.03	40	0.09
Falvay 1989		52	0.48	44	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	87	0.02	69	0.03
Farrell 1958		24	0.63	20	0.01	34	0.05	33	0.23	20	0.23	27	0.23
Ferenczy 1958		7	0.71	2	0.06	2	0.15	5	0.50	6	0.51	3	0.50
Fliere 1977		30	0.59	17	0.01	58	0.05	57	0.05	59	0.04	56	0.04
Fou 1978		81	0.30	59	0.00	87	0.02	85	0.02	79	0.03	82	0.02
Francois 1956		34	0.58	55	0.00	38	0.08	34	0.22	55	0.05	39	0.10
Friedman 1923		80	0.30	31	0.00	27	0.06	38	0.19	11	0.44	26	0.29
Friedman 1923b		82	0.30	52	0.00	26	0.06	37	0.19	13	0.43	25	0.29
Friedman 1930		66	0.41	38	0.00	25	0.06	28	0.29	14	0.40	18	0.34
Garcia 2007		70	0.37	46	0.00	55	0.08	46	0.08	35	0.21	36	0.13
Garcia 2007b		86	0.21	25	0.01	57	0.06	52	0.06	45	0.08	50	0.07
Gierzod 1998		17	0.66	60	0.00	19	0.08	21	0.36	18	0.26	21	0.31
Gornostaeva 1994		43	0.54	73	0.00	61	0.04	62	0.04	56	0.04	61	0.04
Groot 1988		44	0.53	64	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	80	0.03	62	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		71	0.37	35	0.00	49	0.05	61	0.05	62	0.04	65	0.04
Hatto 1993		78	0.31	83	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	60	0.03	64	0.04
Hatto 1997		68	0.38	62	0.00	41	0.06	44	0.13	43	0.09	38	0.11
Horowitz 1949		64	0.41	19	0.01	69	0.03	70	0.03	80	0.03	73	0.03
Indjic 1988		74	0.32	89	0.00	52	0.04	63	0.04	61	0.03	74	0.03
Kapell 1951		2	0.76	18	0.01	3	0.18	3	0.53	11	0.50	2	0.51
Kissin 1993		56	0.47	51	0.00	74	0.03	71	0.03	87	0.02	83	0.02
Kushner 1989		13	0.67	15	0.02	30	0.07	26	0.31	43	0.15	29	0.22
Luisada 1991		65	0.41	30	0.00	70	0.04	67	0.04	85	0.02	66	0.03
Lushtak 2004		32	0.58	74	0.00	20	0.09	22	0.34	47	0.06	34	0.14
Malcuzynski 1961		20	0.64	32	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	63	0.04	48	0.07
Magaloff 1978		49	0.50	66	0.00	72	0.03	73	0.03	84	0.03	68	0.03
Magin 1975		73	0.36	77	0.00	77	0.03	78	0.03	88	0.02	81	0.02
Michalowski 1933		37	0.57	6	0.03	4	0.13	8	0.50	10	0.45	6	0.47
Milkina 1970		50	0.50	84	0.00	73	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.03	71	0.03
Mohovich 1999		51	0.49	75	0.00	64	0.04	64	0.04	66	0.03	76	0.03
Moravec 1969		18	0.65	13	0.02	23	0.06	19	0.40	16	0.42	14	0.41
Morozova 2008		35	0.57	8	0.03	28	0.06	27	0.31	53	0.04	37	0.11
Neighaus 1950		40	0.56	23	0.01	47	0.06	54	0.06	73	0.03	63	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		54	0.47	14	0.02	46	0.06	51	0.06	18	0.27	35	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		28	0.61	78	0.00	44	0.06	40	0.17	59	0.04	44	0.08
Osinska 1989		5	0.72	21	0.01	11	0.09	2	0.54	8	0.42	4	0.48
Pachmann 1927		88	0.12	80	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	87	0.02	90	0.01
Paderewski 1930		10	0.69	33	0.00	15	0.10	17	0.43	5	0.45	10	0.44
Perlemuter 1992		48	0.50	70	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	72	0.03	57	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		59	0.45	36	0.00	66	0.03	68	0.03	87	0.02	80	0.02
Poblocka 1999		3	0.73	28	0.00	9	0.11	9	0.48	15	0.43	8	0.45
Rabcewiczowa 1932		11	0.67	37	0.00	18	0.11	16	0.43	15	0.41	13	0.42
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.47	16	0.01	32	0.07	36	0.20	60	0.04	41	0.09
Rangell 2001		63	0.44	48	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.02	86	0.02
Richter 1976		53	0.48	76	0.00	63	0.05	55	0.05	70	0.03	59	0.04
Rosen 1989		46	0.52	41	0.00	60	0.05	60	0.05	52	0.04	60	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		25	0.63	42	0.00	35	0.06	32	0.25	24	0.37	23	0.30
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.31	43	0.00	84	0.03	81	0.03	78	0.02	84	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.27	68	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		31	0.59	22	0.01	48	0.05	56	0.05	40	0.12	47	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		77	0.31	40	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.02	87	0.02
Rossi 2007		79	0.31	3	0.05	29	0.06	35	0.21	18	0.24	28	0.22
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.17	72	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	89	0.01
Rubinstein 1952		75	0.32	81	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1966		57	0.46	57	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.02	85	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		14	0.67	90	0.00	12	0.09	18	0.43	15	0.38	15	0.40
Shebanova 2002		41	0.55	85	0.00	50	0.06	53	0.06	62	0.04	54	0.05
Smith 1975		16	0.66	9	0.02	8	0.10	6	0.50	29	0.23	17	0.34
Sokolov 2002		6	0.72	5	0.04	17	0.11	7	0.50	25	0.36	12	0.42
Sztompka 1959		1	0.82	1	0.39	1	0.38	1	0.64	3	0.54	1	0.59
Tomsic 1995		45	0.52	86	0.00	56	0.06	48	0.06	79	0.03	58	0.04
Uninsky 1932		23	0.63	11	0.02	6	0.08	10	0.48	9	0.46	7	0.47
Uninsky 1971		15	0.66	26	0.01	10	0.15	12	0.45	15	0.44	11	0.44
Wasowski 1980		26	0.62	7	0.03	31	0.08	30	0.27	11	0.34	22	0.30
Zak 1937		60	0.45	87	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	82	0.03	70	0.03
Zak 1951		61	0.45	69	0.00	65	0.03	69	0.03	66	0.04	72	0.03
Average		4	0.73	12	0.02	13	0.08	11	0.46	56	0.04	33	0.14
Random 1		90	-0.02	58	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	38	0.18	52	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.04	56	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	27	0.21	51	0.06
Random 3		89	0.08	79	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	26	0.22	46	0.08

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).