Csalog 1996

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