Ferenczy 1958

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		20	0.62	44	0.00	32	0.07	27	0.30	46	0.07	31	0.14
Anderszewski 2003		31	0.55	7	0.02	10	0.12	16	0.40	35	0.18	18	0.27
Ashkenazy 1981		34	0.55	64	0.00	26	0.09	21	0.38	36	0.16	21	0.25
Bacha 2000		46	0.48	35	0.00	69	0.03	70	0.03	54	0.05	51	0.04
Badura 1965		69	0.37	43	0.00	49	0.05	48	0.05	66	0.04	56	0.04
Barbosa 1983		36	0.54	72	0.00	27	0.07	34	0.26	35	0.25	19	0.25
Biret 1990		21	0.62	60	0.00	31	0.06	22	0.38	43	0.12	24	0.21
Blet 2003		6	0.69	76	0.00	18	0.08	14	0.41	26	0.25	13	0.32
Block 1995		57	0.42	57	0.00	68	0.03	71	0.03	77	0.03	73	0.03
Blumental 1952		70	0.37	29	0.00	12	0.09	32	0.26	20	0.24	20	0.25
Boshniakovich 1969		68	0.38	83	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		52	0.46	9	0.02	64	0.03	66	0.03	65	0.04	62	0.03
Bunin 1987		11	0.66	16	0.01	15	0.08	7	0.49	30	0.27	11	0.36
Bunin 1987b		12	0.66	40	0.00	17	0.08	8	0.49	32	0.27	10	0.36
Chiu 1999		85	0.20	79	0.00	87	0.02	83	0.02	84	0.03	76	0.02
Cohen 1997		72	0.36	13	0.01	47	0.04	56	0.04	49	0.05	57	0.04
Cortot 1951		4	0.71	3	0.07	4	0.29	6	0.51	5	0.50	4	0.50
Csalog 1996		51	0.47	23	0.01	62	0.03	67	0.03	49	0.06	52	0.04
Czerny 1949		22	0.61	54	0.00	20	0.09	18	0.40	38	0.19	16	0.28
Czerny 1990		17	0.63	32	0.00	23	0.09	20	0.38	41	0.11	25	0.20
Duchoud 2007		19	0.62	84	0.00	25	0.09	17	0.40	38	0.19	17	0.28
Ezaki 2006		8	0.68	8	0.02	16	0.07	11	0.44	46	0.06	28	0.16
Falvay 1989		32	0.55	21	0.01	44	0.04	44	0.09	67	0.04	45	0.06
Farrell 1958		28	0.59	26	0.01	41	0.05	40	0.16	54	0.04	39	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fliere 1977		38	0.52	91	0.00	59	0.04	57	0.04	76	0.03	61	0.03
Fou 1978		71	0.36	28	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	84	0.02	78	0.02
Francois 1956		29	0.58	24	0.01	35	0.10	35	0.24	53	0.05	34	0.11
Friedman 1923		89	0.07	71	0.00	51	0.04	53	0.04	45	0.11	44	0.07
Friedman 1923b		88	0.08	55	0.00	50	0.04	50	0.04	45	0.11	43	0.07
Friedman 1930		80	0.28	50	0.00	37	0.06	39	0.17	56	0.05	38	0.09
Garcia 2007		66	0.40	30	0.00	52	0.06	46	0.06	45	0.11	40	0.08
Garcia 2007b		86	0.16	58	0.00	55	0.04	59	0.04	56	0.04	59	0.04
Gierzod 1998		33	0.55	67	0.00	43	0.04	41	0.12	66	0.03	46	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		44	0.49	27	0.00	67	0.03	69	0.03	82	0.02	86	0.02
Groot 1988		24	0.61	22	0.01	30	0.06	36	0.23	66	0.03	41	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		74	0.35	34	0.00	42	0.04	43	0.10	78	0.03	50	0.05
Hatto 1993		73	0.35	51	0.00	39	0.09	38	0.18	34	0.16	27	0.17
Hatto 1997		48	0.48	25	0.01	13	0.10	26	0.31	26	0.28	15	0.29
Horowitz 1949		77	0.31	36	0.00	79	0.02	81	0.02	79	0.03	80	0.02
Indjic 1988		67	0.39	77	0.00	38	0.06	37	0.18	32	0.16	26	0.17
Kapell 1951		1	0.85	1	0.48	1	0.47	1	0.65	5	0.55	2	0.60
Kissin 1993		60	0.41	88	0.00	80	0.02	89	0.02	78	0.03	82	0.02
Kushner 1989		42	0.50	85	0.00	72	0.04	55	0.04	79	0.03	68	0.03
Luisada 1991		50	0.47	53	0.00	57	0.04	51	0.04	80	0.03	60	0.03
Lushtak 2004		16	0.64	45	0.00	11	0.16	10	0.45	50	0.06	29	0.16
Malcuzynski 1961		37	0.53	86	0.00	71	0.03	65	0.03	79	0.03	70	0.03
Magaloff 1978		55	0.45	65	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	81	0.03	64	0.03
Magin 1975		82	0.25	74	0.00	89	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Michalowski 1933		54	0.46	19	0.01	8	0.15	12	0.44	15	0.43	6	0.43
Milkina 1970		47	0.48	49	0.00	77	0.02	82	0.02	83	0.03	79	0.02
Mohovich 1999		14	0.64	10	0.01	28	0.07	25	0.33	73	0.03	35	0.10
Moravec 1969		39	0.52	18	0.01	48	0.04	60	0.04	38	0.13	42	0.07
Morozova 2008		53	0.46	47	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	74	0.03	54	0.04
Neighaus 1950		45	0.49	66	0.00	53	0.05	47	0.05	79	0.03	58	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.40	73	0.00	66	0.03	74	0.03	78	0.02	77	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		27	0.59	70	0.00	36	0.07	31	0.27	71	0.03	37	0.09
Osinska 1989		25	0.60	11	0.01	33	0.10	30	0.28	37	0.16	23	0.21
Pachmann 1927		76	0.32	89	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	81	0.03	81	0.02
Paderewski 1930		9	0.67	87	0.00	21	0.10	24	0.36	11	0.39	9	0.37
Perlemuter 1992		35	0.54	62	0.00	34	0.07	33	0.26	65	0.03	36	0.09
Pierdomenico 2008		65	0.40	90	0.00	74	0.03	68	0.03	75	0.03	66	0.03
Poblocka 1999		2	0.81	4	0.04	2	0.31	2	0.64	4	0.57	1	0.60
Rabcewiczowa 1932		23	0.61	31	0.00	19	0.08	15	0.41	22	0.35	8	0.38
Rachmaninoff 1923		75	0.35	41	0.00	60	0.04	52	0.04	83	0.03	65	0.03
Rangell 2001		58	0.42	80	0.00	85	0.03	75	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Richter 1976		26	0.59	2	0.07	5	0.18	13	0.41	25	0.21	14	0.29
Rosen 1989		59	0.42	78	0.00	78	0.02	80	0.02	76	0.03	84	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		40	0.52	37	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	78	0.03	48	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		79	0.31	38	0.00	61	0.04	63	0.04	83	0.02	72	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.24	61	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		43	0.49	33	0.00	54	0.04	61	0.04	73	0.03	74	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.31	48	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		84	0.20	39	0.00	56	0.04	58	0.04	74	0.03	63	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		81	0.26	14	0.01	63	0.03	72	0.03	65	0.04	67	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		64	0.40	59	0.00	65	0.03	64	0.03	68	0.03	75	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		30	0.56	12	0.01	58	0.04	54	0.04	65	0.04	53	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		10	0.66	75	0.00	7	0.17	5	0.52	14	0.38	5	0.44
Shebanova 2002		56	0.45	63	0.00	73	0.04	62	0.04	69	0.04	55	0.04
Smith 1975		7	0.68	5	0.03	6	0.19	4	0.56	36	0.19	12	0.33
Sokolov 2002		13	0.65	56	0.00	24	0.09	23	0.37	50	0.05	30	0.14
Sztompka 1959		3	0.77	6	0.02	3	0.23	3	0.60	11	0.46	3	0.53
Tomsic 1995		15	0.64	17	0.01	29	0.07	29	0.28	50	0.04	33	0.11
Uninsky 1932		49	0.47	68	0.00	14	0.09	28	0.30	36	0.20	22	0.24
Uninsky 1971		18	0.63	20	0.01	9	0.16	9	0.48	27	0.36	7	0.42
Wasowski 1980		41	0.51	52	0.00	40	0.05	42	0.10	77	0.03	47	0.05
Zak 1937		62	0.40	81	0.00	75	0.03	73	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.03
Zak 1951		61	0.41	15	0.01	70	0.03	76	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.03
Average		5	0.70	46	0.00	22	0.09	19	0.39	50	0.04	32	0.12
Random 1		91	-0.21	69	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.17	82	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	60	0.03	83	0.02
Random 3		87	0.08	42	0.00	88	0.02	79	0.02	40	0.12	49	0.05

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).