Fliere 1977

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		25	0.74	43	0.00	43	0.05	45	0.10	24	0.27	46	0.16
Anderszewski 2003		70	0.57	55	0.00	73	0.04	63	0.04	58	0.04	79	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		41	0.70	19	0.01	33	0.06	27	0.23	26	0.30	36	0.26
Bacha 2000		71	0.56	72	0.00	75	0.03	81	0.03	46	0.07	73	0.05
Badura 1965		61	0.61	65	0.00	45	0.06	43	0.12	8	0.53	38	0.25
Barbosa 1983		56	0.63	27	0.00	8	0.10	23	0.27	5	0.52	19	0.37
Biret 1990		20	0.76	83	0.00	40	0.04	40	0.13	19	0.30	44	0.20
Blet 2003		18	0.76	20	0.01	30	0.07	20	0.31	5	0.52	17	0.40
Block 1995		63	0.60	23	0.01	65	0.04	70	0.04	31	0.23	64	0.10
Blumental 1952		83	0.38	58	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	69	0.03	88	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.76	14	0.01	13	0.10	11	0.41	2	0.59	7	0.49
Brailowsky 1960		34	0.72	63	0.00	52	0.05	54	0.05	14	0.39	47	0.14
Bunin 1987		37	0.71	68	0.00	25	0.04	39	0.14	20	0.37	41	0.23
Bunin 1987b		36	0.71	30	0.00	24	0.05	37	0.14	20	0.38	40	0.23
Chiu 1999		53	0.64	22	0.01	11	0.08	10	0.41	1	0.61	6	0.50
Cohen 1997		85	0.34	64	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	44	0.11	72	0.06
Cortot 1951		65	0.59	73	0.00	83	0.04	59	0.04	57	0.05	84	0.04
Csalog 1996		73	0.53	40	0.00	74	0.03	82	0.03	22	0.37	59	0.11
Czerny 1949		50	0.66	88	0.00	59	0.03	73	0.03	48	0.06	80	0.04
Czerny 1990		8	0.80	42	0.00	23	0.06	17	0.34	16	0.33	22	0.33
Duchoud 2007		28	0.73	17	0.01	35	0.07	31	0.19	23	0.40	33	0.28
Ezaki 2006		4	0.83	7	0.02	6	0.12	8	0.44	10	0.46	11	0.45
Falvay 1989		21	0.75	49	0.00	17	0.08	18	0.32	14	0.39	20	0.35
Farrell 1958		42	0.69	74	0.00	53	0.05	56	0.05	15	0.28	54	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		74	0.52	89	0.00	85	0.03	76	0.03	57	0.04	86	0.03
Fliere 1977		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fou 1978		26	0.74	2	0.08	2	0.26	2	0.58	2	0.58	3	0.58
Francois 1956		31	0.72	44	0.00	29	0.05	28	0.23	22	0.29	37	0.26
Friedman 1923		88	0.11	24	0.01	88	0.02	88	0.02	54	0.06	90	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.12	35	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	55	0.05	89	0.03
Friedman 1930		84	0.38	5	0.03	69	0.03	77	0.03	35	0.18	70	0.07
Garcia 2007		78	0.44	41	0.00	82	0.04	67	0.04	47	0.05	82	0.04
Garcia 2007b		86	0.25	84	0.00	86	0.04	71	0.04	47	0.06	75	0.05
Gierzod 1998		33	0.72	52	0.00	49	0.05	48	0.05	36	0.17	66	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		5	0.83	38	0.00	10	0.08	12	0.40	8	0.46	13	0.43
Groot 1988		9	0.80	4	0.04	16	0.07	13	0.39	8	0.49	12	0.44
Harasiewicz 1955		68	0.59	50	0.00	21	0.06	25	0.24	18	0.34	30	0.29
Hatto 1993		79	0.44	47	0.00	62	0.04	69	0.04	26	0.22	67	0.09
Hatto 1997		76	0.48	79	0.00	64	0.05	49	0.05	34	0.15	65	0.09
Horowitz 1949		51	0.66	56	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	9	0.42	45	0.16
Indjic 1988		77	0.45	71	0.00	63	0.04	60	0.04	26	0.26	62	0.10
Kapell 1951		47	0.68	32	0.00	67	0.04	68	0.04	44	0.11	69	0.07
Kissin 1993		11	0.78	16	0.01	7	0.12	5	0.47	4	0.60	4	0.53
Kushner 1989		6	0.82	18	0.01	12	0.08	6	0.45	4	0.52	9	0.48
Luisada 1991		39	0.71	26	0.00	34	0.06	34	0.18	9	0.43	31	0.28
Lushtak 2004		43	0.69	48	0.00	22	0.05	22	0.28	18	0.37	23	0.32
Malcuzynski 1961		3	0.85	9	0.02	5	0.14	7	0.45	8	0.50	10	0.47
Magaloff 1978		2	0.85	8	0.02	4	0.12	3	0.57	2	0.61	2	0.59
Magin 1975		52	0.65	59	0.00	54	0.05	53	0.05	23	0.24	57	0.11
Michalowski 1933		81	0.39	67	0.00	72	0.03	79	0.03	62	0.05	77	0.04
Milkina 1970		22	0.75	62	0.00	31	0.06	26	0.23	8	0.46	21	0.33
Mohovich 1999		10	0.79	76	0.00	28	0.05	24	0.24	14	0.40	26	0.31
Moravec 1969		60	0.62	69	0.00	68	0.03	74	0.03	36	0.14	71	0.06
Morozova 2008		40	0.71	39	0.00	15	0.07	14	0.38	4	0.44	15	0.41
Neighaus 1950		7	0.81	6	0.02	3	0.11	4	0.53	11	0.52	5	0.52
Niedzielski 1931		72	0.55	66	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	53	0.04	85	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		14	0.77	28	0.00	39	0.04	35	0.17	14	0.42	34	0.27
Osinska 1989		17	0.76	46	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	12	0.38	42	0.21
Pachmann 1927		69	0.59	34	0.00	27	0.04	36	0.17	6	0.57	25	0.31
Paderewski 1930		48	0.68	54	0.00	66	0.04	72	0.04	18	0.26	61	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		49	0.67	12	0.01	26	0.04	29	0.20	21	0.34	35	0.26
Pierdomenico 2008		24	0.74	36	0.00	32	0.06	33	0.18	4	0.48	28	0.29
Poblocka 1999		19	0.76	15	0.01	47	0.05	50	0.05	21	0.33	51	0.13
Rabcewiczowa 1932		58	0.63	77	0.00	70	0.04	64	0.04	49	0.06	74	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.63	33	0.00	42	0.04	41	0.13	18	0.33	43	0.21
Rangell 2001		12	0.78	3	0.08	9	0.09	9	0.42	1	0.58	8	0.49
Richter 1976		54	0.64	53	0.00	55	0.05	51	0.05	23	0.23	58	0.11
Rosen 1989		27	0.73	10	0.01	36	0.07	30	0.20	10	0.51	24	0.32
Rosenthal 1930		44	0.68	57	0.00	58	0.04	61	0.04	23	0.38	55	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		62	0.61	80	0.00	56	0.05	52	0.05	13	0.42	48	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		67	0.59	90	0.00	57	0.05	55	0.05	14	0.41	49	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		35	0.71	70	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.12	12	0.47	39	0.24
Rosenthal 1931d		55	0.63	85	0.00	61	0.04	65	0.04	13	0.37	56	0.12
Rossi 2007		82	0.39	81	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	25	0.18	68	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.44	51	0.00	79	0.03	75	0.03	11	0.46	53	0.12
Rubinstein 1952		46	0.68	82	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	14	0.50	50	0.14
Rubinstein 1966		32	0.72	13	0.01	38	0.05	38	0.14	5	0.60	29	0.29
Schilhawsky 1960		45	0.68	78	0.00	50	0.04	58	0.04	31	0.23	63	0.10
Shebanova 2002		29	0.73	11	0.01	37	0.05	32	0.18	8	0.50	27	0.30
Smith 1975		13	0.77	75	0.00	20	0.05	21	0.30	20	0.26	32	0.28
Sokolov 2002		23	0.75	37	0.00	48	0.06	46	0.06	37	0.24	52	0.12
Sztompka 1959		59	0.62	29	0.00	71	0.04	62	0.04	61	0.05	76	0.04
Tomsic 1995		15	0.77	21	0.01	18	0.07	15	0.37	13	0.44	16	0.40
Uninsky 1932		75	0.52	31	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	64	0.04	87	0.03
Uninsky 1971		66	0.59	60	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	53	0.05	78	0.04
Wasowski 1980		64	0.60	61	0.00	51	0.05	57	0.05	26	0.22	60	0.10
Zak 1937		30	0.72	45	0.00	19	0.08	19	0.31	7	0.48	18	0.39
Zak 1951		38	0.71	25	0.01	14	0.07	16	0.35	11	0.47	14	0.41
Average		1	0.91	1	0.45	1	0.44	1	0.74	3	0.58	1	0.66
Random 1		89	-0.02	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	41	0.16	83	0.04
Random 2		91	-0.05	87	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	39	0.14	81	0.04
Random 3		90	-0.04	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	91	0.01

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).