Kapell 1951

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		24	0.70	59	0.00	32	0.07	29	0.34	34	0.17	36	0.24
Anderszewski 2003		29	0.67	3	0.11	5	0.15	9	0.51	8	0.54	6	0.52
Ashkenazy 1981		32	0.66	41	0.00	22	0.08	18	0.43	15	0.39	20	0.41
Bacha 2000		61	0.52	47	0.00	69	0.04	63	0.04	47	0.06	52	0.05
Badura 1965		71	0.43	83	0.00	58	0.05	54	0.05	54	0.04	64	0.04
Barbosa 1983		44	0.58	54	0.00	38	0.08	40	0.18	30	0.31	35	0.24
Biret 1990		10	0.75	71	0.00	19	0.08	21	0.42	10	0.43	18	0.42
Blet 2003		15	0.73	31	0.00	25	0.08	19	0.43	17	0.38	21	0.40
Block 1995		69	0.45	84	0.00	79	0.02	81	0.02	73	0.03	85	0.02
Blumental 1952		77	0.38	18	0.01	21	0.08	31	0.29	11	0.34	32	0.31
Boshniakovich 1969		72	0.43	79	0.00	82	0.02	83	0.02	83	0.03	87	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		63	0.49	26	0.01	78	0.03	75	0.03	68	0.04	68	0.03
Bunin 1987		19	0.71	32	0.00	27	0.12	17	0.44	13	0.43	15	0.43
Bunin 1987b		18	0.71	49	0.00	28	0.16	16	0.44	13	0.43	14	0.43
Chiu 1999		82	0.34	63	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	77	0.03	70	0.03
Cohen 1997		81	0.35	9	0.03	73	0.03	67	0.03	38	0.14	51	0.06
Cortot 1951		9	0.76	13	0.01	6	0.11	11	0.50	3	0.53	7	0.51
Csalog 1996		58	0.53	57	0.00	72	0.03	66	0.03	42	0.18	49	0.07
Czerny 1949		12	0.74	37	0.00	9	0.15	6	0.53	7	0.54	4	0.53
Czerny 1990		7	0.77	14	0.01	13	0.17	7	0.52	11	0.41	11	0.46
Duchoud 2007		5	0.78	55	0.00	18	0.09	15	0.44	16	0.44	13	0.44
Ezaki 2006		20	0.71	33	0.00	30	0.08	25	0.38	51	0.05	40	0.14
Falvay 1989		41	0.59	38	0.00	53	0.05	48	0.05	50	0.05	53	0.05
Farrell 1958		28	0.67	48	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.14	27	0.21	38	0.17
Ferenczy 1958		1	0.85	2	0.14	2	0.32	5	0.55	1	0.65	2	0.60
Fliere 1977		27	0.68	29	0.01	44	0.06	44	0.11	68	0.04	47	0.07
Fou 1978		80	0.36	56	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	78	0.03	81	0.02
Francois 1956		13	0.73	12	0.01	26	0.08	23	0.40	16	0.33	25	0.36
Friedman 1923		86	0.17	52	0.00	46	0.05	51	0.05	29	0.25	43	0.11
Friedman 1923b		85	0.18	61	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	28	0.27	39	0.16
Friedman 1930		70	0.44	27	0.01	35	0.08	34	0.27	13	0.41	28	0.33
Garcia 2007		76	0.38	51	0.00	50	0.04	62	0.04	29	0.25	44	0.10
Garcia 2007b		88	0.16	80	0.00	71	0.03	73	0.03	51	0.04	79	0.03
Gierzod 1998		14	0.73	42	0.00	23	0.09	20	0.42	5	0.43	17	0.42
Gornostaeva 1994		40	0.60	64	0.00	63	0.03	77	0.03	72	0.03	77	0.03
Groot 1988		33	0.65	68	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	65	0.03	65	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		66	0.47	10	0.02	17	0.09	28	0.35	58	0.04	42	0.12
Hatto 1993		68	0.45	43	0.00	34	0.08	37	0.22	11	0.42	33	0.30
Hatto 1997		50	0.55	28	0.01	14	0.10	26	0.36	11	0.45	22	0.40
Horowitz 1949		62	0.49	20	0.01	61	0.04	61	0.04	64	0.04	59	0.04
Indjic 1988		65	0.48	46	0.00	33	0.07	36	0.23	10	0.44	30	0.32
Kapell 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kissin 1993		67	0.46	30	0.01	80	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.02	82	0.02
Kushner 1989		36	0.63	77	0.00	57	0.05	50	0.05	72	0.03	57	0.04
Luisada 1991		55	0.54	39	0.00	52	0.05	49	0.05	65	0.04	55	0.04
Lushtak 2004		30	0.66	16	0.01	12	0.13	12	0.47	20	0.35	19	0.41
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.70	50	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.15	75	0.03	48	0.07
Magaloff 1978		42	0.59	69	0.00	64	0.03	74	0.03	64	0.03	71	0.03
Magin 1975		75	0.38	19	0.01	74	0.03	71	0.03	77	0.02	80	0.02
Michalowski 1933		47	0.56	11	0.02	8	0.14	10	0.51	7	0.46	8	0.48
Milkina 1970		45	0.57	66	0.00	75	0.03	69	0.03	69	0.04	75	0.03
Mohovich 1999		31	0.66	76	0.00	43	0.06	41	0.16	51	0.04	46	0.08
Moravec 1969		21	0.70	53	0.00	39	0.11	32	0.29	21	0.35	29	0.32
Morozova 2008		64	0.48	35	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	66	0.04	61	0.04
Neighaus 1950		35	0.63	44	0.00	40	0.07	38	0.20	59	0.04	45	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		39	0.60	36	0.00	49	0.04	56	0.04	10	0.39	41	0.12
Ohlsson 1999		11	0.74	34	0.00	29	0.10	24	0.40	17	0.32	24	0.36
Osinska 1989		25	0.69	72	0.00	36	0.08	33	0.27	31	0.21	34	0.24
Pachmann 1927		79	0.37	25	0.01	81	0.03	80	0.03	47	0.05	60	0.04
Paderewski 1930		17	0.72	22	0.01	31	0.11	27	0.36	2	0.50	16	0.42
Perlemuter 1992		59	0.52	67	0.00	48	0.04	58	0.04	67	0.03	67	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		60	0.52	88	0.00	65	0.03	70	0.03	69	0.03	72	0.03
Poblocka 1999		2	0.84	1	0.22	1	0.22	2	0.58	1	0.64	1	0.61
Rabcewiczowa 1932		22	0.70	73	0.00	24	0.08	22	0.41	9	0.47	12	0.44
Rachmaninoff 1923		57	0.53	65	0.00	47	0.04	55	0.04	66	0.04	56	0.04
Rangell 2001		48	0.56	21	0.01	70	0.04	60	0.04	68	0.03	78	0.03
Richter 1976		38	0.62	7	0.03	16	0.10	35	0.26	14	0.36	31	0.31
Rosen 1989		49	0.56	74	0.00	66	0.03	72	0.03	84	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1930		43	0.59	62	0.00	59	0.04	59	0.04	56	0.04	63	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.37	89	0.00	84	0.02	90	0.02	75	0.03	83	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.33	90	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	76	0.03	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		46	0.56	85	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	54	0.04	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		74	0.39	91	0.00	87	0.02	84	0.02	79	0.02	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		87	0.17	81	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	70	0.03	69	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		84	0.30	8	0.03	89	0.02	85	0.02	46	0.06	73	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		73	0.42	40	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	74	0.03	90	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		54	0.54	70	0.00	77	0.02	82	0.02	53	0.05	76	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		6	0.78	24	0.01	3	0.16	3	0.56	2	0.59	3	0.57
Shebanova 2002		56	0.54	78	0.00	62	0.03	68	0.03	55	0.05	62	0.04
Smith 1975		16	0.73	23	0.01	11	0.12	8	0.52	15	0.29	23	0.39
Sokolov 2002		8	0.77	6	0.04	15	0.08	14	0.47	11	0.46	9	0.46
Sztompka 1959		4	0.79	4	0.06	4	0.19	4	0.55	9	0.50	5	0.52
Tomsic 1995		34	0.64	75	0.00	54	0.06	46	0.06	63	0.04	54	0.05
Uninsky 1932		51	0.55	17	0.01	20	0.07	30	0.31	23	0.37	26	0.34
Uninsky 1971		26	0.68	15	0.01	7	0.13	13	0.47	10	0.46	10	0.46
Wasowski 1980		37	0.63	45	0.00	37	0.07	39	0.19	20	0.25	37	0.22
Zak 1937		52	0.55	82	0.00	60	0.04	57	0.04	75	0.03	74	0.03
Zak 1951		53	0.54	58	0.00	56	0.05	52	0.05	67	0.04	58	0.04
Average		3	0.82	5	0.04	10	0.12	1	0.59	36	0.19	27	0.33
Random 1		91	-0.26	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.09	87	0.00	90	0.02	86	0.02	55	0.03	84	0.02
Random 3		89	0.08	60	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	33	0.15	50	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).