Czerny 1949

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		6	0.78	17	0.01	4	0.25	5	0.59	2	0.54	4	0.56
Anderszewski 2003		63	0.46	15	0.01	29	0.06	40	0.16	33	0.19	39	0.17
Ashkenazy 1981		57	0.52	44	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.10	51	0.04	56	0.06
Bacha 2000		79	0.28	67	0.00	86	0.03	73	0.03	72	0.03	70	0.03
Badura 1965		34	0.61	77	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.13	23	0.32	36	0.20
Barbosa 1983		46	0.57	71	0.00	56	0.07	47	0.07	44	0.18	45	0.11
Biret 1990		24	0.66	25	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.24	33	0.19	35	0.21
Blet 2003		21	0.66	78	0.00	30	0.06	24	0.32	24	0.32	27	0.32
Block 1995		71	0.38	23	0.00	70	0.03	69	0.03	57	0.04	82	0.03
Blumental 1952		56	0.52	9	0.02	14	0.10	29	0.26	6	0.41	25	0.33
Boshniakovich 1969		52	0.53	55	0.00	74	0.04	65	0.04	62	0.04	69	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		67	0.40	49	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.04	71	0.03
Bunin 1987		28	0.65	37	0.00	32	0.06	25	0.31	25	0.34	28	0.32
Bunin 1987b		27	0.65	48	0.00	33	0.09	26	0.31	25	0.34	26	0.32
Chiu 1999		68	0.40	79	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	70	0.04	72	0.03
Cohen 1997		88	0.08	73	0.00	88	0.02	84	0.02	76	0.03	85	0.02
Cortot 1951		15	0.70	54	0.00	12	0.14	14	0.43	4	0.53	12	0.48
Csalog 1996		76	0.34	74	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	63	0.03	80	0.03
Czerny 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1990		1	0.89	1	0.47	1	0.46	1	0.74	1	0.69	1	0.71
Duchoud 2007		37	0.60	32	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.10	37	0.19	42	0.14
Ezaki 2006		8	0.75	24	0.00	10	0.10	13	0.47	13	0.41	14	0.44
Falvay 1989		35	0.61	21	0.00	53	0.05	55	0.05	43	0.09	52	0.07
Farrell 1958		53	0.53	51	0.00	57	0.07	46	0.07	56	0.04	57	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		33	0.61	53	0.00	28	0.07	38	0.19	18	0.40	33	0.28
Fliere 1977		23	0.66	90	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	73	0.03	62	0.04
Fou 1978		73	0.36	31	0.00	75	0.05	60	0.05	73	0.04	66	0.04
Francois 1956		2	0.83	2	0.09	2	0.23	2	0.68	1	0.68	2	0.68
Friedman 1923		83	0.22	83	0.00	39	0.09	37	0.19	8	0.46	31	0.30
Friedman 1923b		82	0.23	80	0.00	38	0.08	35	0.20	8	0.45	30	0.30
Friedman 1930		55	0.52	45	0.00	23	0.07	19	0.39	4	0.49	15	0.44
Garcia 2007		81	0.23	64	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03	81	0.03
Garcia 2007b		87	0.12	81	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	74	0.03	90	0.02
Gierzod 1998		14	0.70	6	0.03	8	0.10	10	0.52	4	0.44	11	0.48
Gornostaeva 1994		11	0.73	4	0.03	17	0.11	21	0.37	12	0.39	21	0.38
Groot 1988		31	0.63	36	0.00	48	0.05	56	0.05	43	0.11	54	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		48	0.55	63	0.00	40	0.08	36	0.20	43	0.10	43	0.14
Hatto 1993		85	0.19	87	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	75	0.02	88	0.02
Hatto 1997		77	0.30	41	0.00	58	0.06	52	0.06	49	0.04	60	0.05
Horowitz 1949		51	0.53	14	0.01	47	0.05	57	0.05	39	0.13	50	0.08
Indjic 1988		84	0.22	88	0.00	67	0.03	78	0.03	69	0.03	78	0.03
Kapell 1951		9	0.74	8	0.03	5	0.18	7	0.54	6	0.53	6	0.53
Kissin 1993		59	0.49	52	0.00	64	0.03	77	0.03	63	0.04	77	0.03
Kushner 1989		19	0.68	50	0.00	25	0.07	28	0.27	24	0.32	32	0.29
Luisada 1991		62	0.47	56	0.00	66	0.03	68	0.03	50	0.05	61	0.04
Lushtak 2004		49	0.55	84	0.00	34	0.08	30	0.26	51	0.05	46	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		12	0.71	7	0.03	13	0.12	6	0.57	11	0.46	8	0.51
Magaloff 1978		50	0.53	29	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	57	0.04	63	0.04
Magin 1975		72	0.37	57	0.00	69	0.03	74	0.03	48	0.05	65	0.04
Michalowski 1933		54	0.53	19	0.01	21	0.10	20	0.38	6	0.47	16	0.42
Milkina 1970		65	0.45	20	0.01	44	0.05	45	0.09	48	0.06	53	0.07
Mohovich 1999		20	0.66	34	0.00	37	0.07	31	0.25	31	0.16	37	0.20
Moravec 1969		16	0.70	18	0.01	19	0.10	15	0.42	2	0.58	9	0.49
Morozova 2008		30	0.63	60	0.00	22	0.08	27	0.31	9	0.31	29	0.31
Neighaus 1950		26	0.65	12	0.02	18	0.10	16	0.42	23	0.34	22	0.38
Niedzielski 1931		58	0.52	27	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	57	0.04	64	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.60	47	0.00	54	0.04	61	0.04	50	0.06	59	0.05
Osinska 1989		4	0.79	16	0.01	9	0.09	11	0.51	4	0.55	5	0.53
Pachmann 1927		80	0.25	58	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	62	0.04	76	0.03
Paderewski 1930		39	0.59	13	0.01	55	0.06	54	0.06	35	0.14	48	0.09
Perlemuter 1992		36	0.60	82	0.00	51	0.06	51	0.06	43	0.10	49	0.08
Pierdomenico 2008		43	0.58	76	0.00	62	0.03	72	0.03	54	0.04	73	0.03
Poblocka 1999		32	0.61	70	0.00	36	0.07	34	0.20	36	0.17	38	0.18
Rabcewiczowa 1932		3	0.80	5	0.03	7	0.15	4	0.59	1	0.65	3	0.62
Rachmaninoff 1923		29	0.64	35	0.00	27	0.07	22	0.37	9	0.40	19	0.38
Rangell 2001		70	0.38	43	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	71	0.03	86	0.02
Richter 1976		66	0.43	66	0.00	71	0.03	67	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.03
Rosen 1989		40	0.58	30	0.00	26	0.08	39	0.19	24	0.36	34	0.26
Rosenthal 1930		22	0.66	46	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.24	4	0.56	23	0.37
Rosenthal 1931		74	0.35	75	0.00	76	0.04	62	0.04	69	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.30	62	0.00	77	0.03	71	0.03	69	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		41	0.58	61	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	19	0.36	40	0.15
Rosenthal 1931d		75	0.34	28	0.00	79	0.02	82	0.02	67	0.03	87	0.02
Rossi 2007		64	0.46	72	0.00	65	0.03	70	0.03	26	0.17	51	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		86	0.18	40	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	67	0.04	74	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		69	0.40	68	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		60	0.47	59	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	51	0.05	67	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		25	0.65	26	0.00	24	0.07	23	0.36	20	0.34	24	0.35
Shebanova 2002		61	0.47	91	0.00	73	0.03	66	0.03	52	0.06	68	0.04
Smith 1975		10	0.74	42	0.00	15	0.09	12	0.49	14	0.30	20	0.38
Sokolov 2002		13	0.71	10	0.02	16	0.10	8	0.53	9	0.46	10	0.49
Sztompka 1959		5	0.78	3	0.06	3	0.21	9	0.52	5	0.53	7	0.52
Tomsic 1995		44	0.57	39	0.00	52	0.06	49	0.06	62	0.04	58	0.05
Uninsky 1932		18	0.69	38	0.00	11	0.10	18	0.40	16	0.43	18	0.41
Uninsky 1971		17	0.69	33	0.00	20	0.10	17	0.40	16	0.43	17	0.41
Wasowski 1980		47	0.56	65	0.00	59	0.06	53	0.06	24	0.24	44	0.12
Zak 1937		45	0.57	85	0.00	46	0.05	59	0.05	38	0.17	47	0.09
Zak 1951		42	0.58	89	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.09	35	0.21	41	0.14
Average		7	0.77	11	0.02	6	0.13	3	0.65	19	0.33	13	0.46
Random 1		91	-0.25	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.06	22	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	65	0.03	84	0.02
Random 3		89	-0.04	69	0.00	87	0.02	85	0.02	30	0.20	55	0.06

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).