Indjic 1988

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		75	0.25	64	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.09	74	0.03	56	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		4	0.67	56	0.00	3	0.27	6	0.54	5	0.55	4	0.54
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.69	28	0.00	4	0.26	3	0.66	4	0.56	3	0.61
Bacha 2000		21	0.47	3	0.00	38	0.04	39	0.12	22	0.32	25	0.20
Badura 1965		83	0.21	30	0.00	53	0.05	47	0.05	52	0.04	61	0.04
Barbosa 1983		53	0.33	41	0.00	18	0.07	25	0.26	39	0.23	20	0.24
Biret 1990		8	0.54	16	0.00	9	0.11	9	0.46	24	0.26	9	0.35
Blet 2003		16	0.49	57	0.00	22	0.08	13	0.40	31	0.18	16	0.27
Block 1995		89	0.04	31	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	85	0.02	85	0.02
Blumental 1952		27	0.42	42	0.00	35	0.05	38	0.13	30	0.17	34	0.15
Boshniakovich 1969		77	0.23	43	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		37	0.38	58	0.00	50	0.04	50	0.04	37	0.14	46	0.07
Bunin 1987		14	0.50	9	0.00	21	0.07	19	0.37	44	0.11	28	0.20
Bunin 1987b		13	0.51	10	0.00	20	0.07	18	0.37	44	0.11	26	0.20
Chiu 1999		42	0.36	26	0.00	31	0.08	29	0.23	30	0.22	23	0.22
Cohen 1997		62	0.30	59	0.00	79	0.03	65	0.03	32	0.23	42	0.08
Cortot 1951		57	0.32	65	0.00	56	0.03	61	0.03	63	0.04	80	0.03
Csalog 1996		64	0.29	60	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.11	30	0.27	31	0.17
Czerny 1949		82	0.22	66	0.00	69	0.03	69	0.03	78	0.03	74	0.03
Czerny 1990		49	0.33	21	0.00	40	0.04	34	0.16	61	0.04	43	0.08
Duchoud 2007		6	0.63	22	0.00	5	0.24	7	0.52	17	0.43	6	0.47
Ezaki 2006		25	0.43	11	0.00	25	0.08	15	0.40	39	0.12	22	0.22
Falvay 1989		58	0.32	4	0.00	39	0.04	43	0.09	44	0.07	41	0.08
Farrell 1958		24	0.43	67	0.00	59	0.03	62	0.03	57	0.04	68	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		32	0.39	68	0.00	28	0.06	32	0.16	37	0.18	32	0.17
Fliere 1977		23	0.45	44	0.00	33	0.06	26	0.26	60	0.04	35	0.10
Fou 1978		40	0.37	69	0.00	64	0.03	70	0.03	70	0.04	69	0.03
Francois 1956		87	0.19	45	0.00	78	0.03	73	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.03
Friedman 1923		72	0.26	32	0.00	72	0.03	63	0.03	55	0.06	65	0.04
Friedman 1923b		70	0.27	70	0.00	71	0.02	79	0.02	53	0.06	78	0.03
Friedman 1930		68	0.27	23	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.07	47	0.06	52	0.06
Garcia 2007		54	0.32	17	0.00	54	0.04	53	0.04	70	0.03	75	0.03
Garcia 2007b		69	0.27	14	0.00	46	0.04	54	0.04	29	0.15	45	0.08
Gierzod 1998		18	0.49	33	0.00	15	0.07	20	0.36	37	0.17	18	0.25
Gornostaeva 1994		79	0.22	24	0.00	85	0.02	82	0.02	75	0.03	88	0.02
Groot 1988		74	0.26	71	0.00	75	0.02	83	0.02	81	0.03	89	0.02
Harasiewicz 1955		78	0.23	12	0.00	36	0.05	35	0.15	48	0.05	40	0.09
Hatto 1993		1	0.99	1	0.96	1	0.95	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Hatto 1997		2	0.98	2	0.03	2	0.88	2	0.94	1	0.91	2	0.92
Horowitz 1949		43	0.36	72	0.00	51	0.05	49	0.05	45	0.08	51	0.06
Indjic 1988		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kapell 1951		20	0.48	6	0.00	19	0.07	10	0.44	36	0.23	12	0.32
Kissin 1993		73	0.26	73	0.00	65	0.03	71	0.03	48	0.06	59	0.04
Kushner 1989		41	0.37	61	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.10	76	0.03	54	0.05
Luisada 1991		7	0.59	46	0.00	7	0.17	8	0.49	10	0.43	7	0.46
Lushtak 2004		12	0.53	74	0.00	13	0.12	14	0.40	30	0.20	14	0.28
Malcuzynski 1961		38	0.37	75	0.00	60	0.03	64	0.03	85	0.03	70	0.03
Magaloff 1978		45	0.34	76	0.00	37	0.04	44	0.09	82	0.03	53	0.05
Magin 1975		10	0.53	77	0.00	8	0.11	21	0.36	11	0.34	8	0.35
Michalowski 1933		60	0.31	78	0.00	23	0.08	17	0.37	37	0.27	13	0.32
Milkina 1970		34	0.38	47	0.00	66	0.03	68	0.03	56	0.05	57	0.04
Mohovich 1999		51	0.33	34	0.00	61	0.03	58	0.03	75	0.03	77	0.03
Moravec 1969		61	0.31	35	0.00	42	0.04	37	0.14	31	0.20	29	0.17
Morozova 2008		22	0.45	5	0.00	12	0.13	23	0.34	38	0.12	27	0.20
Neighaus 1950		26	0.42	18	0.00	48	0.05	48	0.05	82	0.03	63	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		81	0.22	48	0.00	57	0.03	59	0.03	32	0.17	47	0.07
Ohlsson 1999		5	0.65	7	0.00	6	0.33	5	0.56	10	0.50	5	0.53
Osinska 1989		85	0.20	79	0.00	77	0.02	84	0.02	68	0.04	66	0.03
Pachmann 1927		71	0.26	15	0.00	73	0.02	87	0.02	40	0.14	55	0.05
Paderewski 1930		65	0.28	36	0.00	83	0.02	78	0.02	70	0.03	84	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		86	0.19	8	0.00	84	0.02	76	0.02	68	0.03	82	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		76	0.24	80	0.00	68	0.03	67	0.03	84	0.02	83	0.02
Poblocka 1999		19	0.49	81	0.00	14	0.10	11	0.42	30	0.24	10	0.32
Rabcewiczowa 1932		80	0.22	82	0.00	70	0.03	72	0.03	60	0.04	67	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		44	0.34	13	0.00	34	0.06	36	0.14	80	0.03	50	0.06
Rangell 2001		52	0.33	83	0.00	67	0.03	57	0.03	29	0.21	44	0.08
Richter 1976		63	0.30	49	0.00	58	0.04	51	0.04	69	0.03	72	0.03
Rosen 1989		56	0.32	50	0.00	76	0.02	85	0.02	79	0.03	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		35	0.38	37	0.00	52	0.04	52	0.04	75	0.03	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		55	0.32	51	0.00	81	0.03	56	0.03	67	0.03	73	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		46	0.33	84	0.00	80	0.03	75	0.03	57	0.05	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		47	0.33	85	0.00	82	0.02	77	0.02	75	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		67	0.28	62	0.00	74	0.02	81	0.02	59	0.04	79	0.03
Rossi 2007		91	-0.19	86	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		17	0.49	52	0.00	27	0.06	31	0.17	12	0.44	15	0.27
Rubinstein 1952		84	0.21	87	0.00	63	0.03	74	0.03	36	0.15	49	0.07
Rubinstein 1966		15	0.49	63	0.00	49	0.05	46	0.05	38	0.17	39	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.41	29	0.00	17	0.07	22	0.35	37	0.20	17	0.26
Shebanova 2002		29	0.41	27	0.00	30	0.06	33	0.16	26	0.32	21	0.23
Smith 1975		33	0.38	38	0.00	24	0.08	16	0.39	84	0.02	38	0.09
Sokolov 2002		11	0.53	39	0.00	11	0.13	12	0.41	36	0.25	11	0.32
Sztompka 1959		50	0.33	88	0.00	62	0.03	66	0.03	59	0.05	58	0.04
Tomsic 1995		31	0.39	40	0.00	55	0.03	60	0.03	71	0.03	71	0.03
Uninsky 1932		59	0.31	19	0.00	47	0.04	55	0.04	48	0.05	60	0.04
Uninsky 1971		30	0.40	53	0.00	29	0.07	24	0.32	41	0.18	19	0.24
Wasowski 1980		39	0.37	54	0.00	26	0.08	27	0.26	39	0.11	30	0.17
Zak 1937		36	0.38	20	0.00	32	0.06	30	0.21	44	0.11	33	0.15
Zak 1951		48	0.33	55	0.00	16	0.10	28	0.25	63	0.04	36	0.10
Average		9	0.54	25	0.00	10	0.11	4	0.59	46	0.08	24	0.22
Random 1		90	0.00	89	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	35	0.18	62	0.04
Random 2		88	0.05	90	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	3	0.50	37	0.10
Random 3		66	0.28	91	0.00	88	0.02	80	0.02	22	0.27	48	0.07

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).