Kissin 1993

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		26	0.67	39	0.00	35	0.06	28	0.25	35	0.15	40	0.19
Anderszewski 2003		74	0.39	53	0.00	72	0.03	71	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		33	0.64	4	0.06	7	0.12	16	0.45	27	0.28	19	0.35
Bacha 2000		49	0.56	77	0.00	54	0.04	61	0.04	26	0.31	44	0.11
Badura 1965		50	0.55	81	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.14	26	0.31	39	0.21
Barbosa 1983		61	0.47	51	0.00	60	0.05	55	0.05	51	0.04	64	0.04
Biret 1990		52	0.55	43	0.00	55	0.05	52	0.05	55	0.04	68	0.04
Blet 2003		40	0.61	70	0.00	58	0.04	62	0.04	56	0.04	65	0.04
Block 1995		18	0.70	56	0.00	37	0.05	38	0.20	14	0.33	30	0.26
Blumental 1952		78	0.33	17	0.01	67	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.03	83	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		17	0.70	20	0.01	25	0.07	25	0.30	11	0.38	21	0.34
Brailowsky 1960		23	0.68	35	0.00	40	0.06	29	0.25	16	0.39	23	0.31
Bunin 1987		68	0.45	40	0.00	79	0.04	67	0.04	69	0.04	67	0.04
Bunin 1987b		67	0.45	67	0.00	78	0.02	89	0.02	68	0.04	72	0.03
Chiu 1999		46	0.57	49	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.24	20	0.36	24	0.29
Cohen 1997		75	0.38	46	0.00	68	0.03	70	0.03	36	0.16	55	0.07
Cortot 1951		63	0.47	73	0.00	76	0.02	87	0.02	71	0.03	89	0.02
Csalog 1996		54	0.51	9	0.02	28	0.06	44	0.13	9	0.52	29	0.26
Czerny 1949		57	0.49	78	0.00	59	0.04	63	0.04	77	0.03	81	0.03
Czerny 1990		22	0.68	30	0.00	39	0.08	34	0.23	49	0.05	46	0.11
Duchoud 2007		58	0.49	54	0.00	36	0.06	45	0.13	67	0.04	54	0.07
Ezaki 2006		11	0.76	61	0.00	18	0.08	12	0.48	24	0.28	16	0.37
Falvay 1989		1	0.84	3	0.08	3	0.19	5	0.57	7	0.54	5	0.55
Farrell 1958		62	0.47	47	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	88	0.02	84	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		73	0.41	85	0.00	83	0.03	78	0.03	89	0.02	86	0.02
Fliere 1977		6	0.78	8	0.02	6	0.13	4	0.60	5	0.47	6	0.53
Fou 1978		2	0.83	1	0.30	1	0.30	1	0.71	1	0.60	2	0.65
Francois 1956		35	0.62	31	0.00	24	0.09	23	0.32	31	0.19	33	0.25
Friedman 1923		89	-0.11	79	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	79	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1923b		90	-0.11	68	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	82	0.03	88	0.02
Friedman 1930		85	0.11	59	0.00	80	0.02	80	0.02	58	0.05	78	0.03
Garcia 2007		79	0.28	86	0.00	85	0.03	73	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03
Garcia 2007b		86	0.03	87	0.00	87	0.02	82	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Gierzod 1998		47	0.57	6	0.03	13	0.08	36	0.22	42	0.12	41	0.16
Gornostaeva 1994		21	0.68	66	0.00	16	0.07	19	0.38	21	0.31	22	0.34
Groot 1988		13	0.74	28	0.00	19	0.08	18	0.41	17	0.39	15	0.40
Harasiewicz 1955		48	0.57	10	0.02	31	0.07	27	0.25	31	0.22	36	0.23
Hatto 1993		82	0.24	55	0.00	62	0.08	46	0.08	67	0.03	59	0.05
Hatto 1997		80	0.28	74	0.00	63	0.04	59	0.04	84	0.02	79	0.03
Horowitz 1949		44	0.58	21	0.01	27	0.06	35	0.23	13	0.36	25	0.29
Indjic 1988		81	0.26	71	0.00	61	0.06	48	0.06	71	0.03	63	0.04
Kapell 1951		65	0.46	29	0.00	75	0.02	85	0.02	79	0.03	85	0.02
Kissin 1993		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kushner 1989		12	0.75	13	0.01	8	0.10	6	0.56	6	0.48	7	0.52
Luisada 1991		34	0.63	27	0.00	22	0.09	21	0.35	21	0.33	20	0.34
Lushtak 2004		37	0.62	26	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.17	65	0.04	50	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		7	0.78	7	0.02	10	0.13	7	0.54	14	0.43	10	0.48
Magaloff 1978		8	0.78	11	0.02	9	0.10	11	0.48	6	0.47	11	0.47
Magin 1975		30	0.66	12	0.01	17	0.08	20	0.36	8	0.37	17	0.36
Michalowski 1933		84	0.18	69	0.00	84	0.04	69	0.04	81	0.03	74	0.03
Milkina 1970		4	0.80	5	0.04	4	0.19	3	0.62	5	0.58	3	0.60
Mohovich 1999		14	0.73	60	0.00	32	0.08	26	0.27	25	0.28	27	0.27
Moravec 1969		38	0.62	62	0.00	29	0.06	39	0.18	20	0.35	31	0.25
Morozova 2008		41	0.60	32	0.00	46	0.06	47	0.06	59	0.04	57	0.05
Neighaus 1950		28	0.67	48	0.00	26	0.06	24	0.31	38	0.17	35	0.23
Niedzielski 1931		77	0.37	64	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	54	0.04	70	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		42	0.59	14	0.01	23	0.11	30	0.25	26	0.24	34	0.24
Osinska 1989		16	0.70	45	0.00	34	0.06	33	0.23	24	0.29	28	0.26
Pachmann 1927		53	0.53	24	0.00	48	0.06	49	0.06	24	0.33	42	0.14
Paderewski 1930		39	0.61	16	0.01	49	0.05	51	0.05	39	0.11	53	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		31	0.65	23	0.00	42	0.09	37	0.21	29	0.22	38	0.21
Pierdomenico 2008		15	0.71	36	0.00	11	0.09	13	0.46	2	0.51	9	0.48
Poblocka 1999		36	0.62	41	0.00	56	0.05	53	0.05	70	0.03	60	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		66	0.45	75	0.00	70	0.03	74	0.03	66	0.03	71	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.43	80	0.00	57	0.04	56	0.04	47	0.05	62	0.04
Rangell 2001		24	0.68	42	0.00	20	0.08	17	0.43	5	0.46	13	0.44
Richter 1976		29	0.66	33	0.00	41	0.07	31	0.24	19	0.26	32	0.25
Rosen 1989		20	0.69	88	0.00	30	0.06	22	0.32	21	0.40	18	0.36
Rosenthal 1930		56	0.50	72	0.00	65	0.04	57	0.04	63	0.04	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		55	0.50	38	0.00	50	0.04	64	0.04	29	0.31	45	0.11
Rosenthal 1931b		59	0.48	52	0.00	53	0.05	54	0.05	23	0.29	43	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		43	0.58	65	0.00	52	0.04	58	0.04	28	0.23	48	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		51	0.55	89	0.00	51	0.04	65	0.04	23	0.32	47	0.11
Rossi 2007		72	0.42	90	0.00	47	0.04	60	0.04	21	0.21	49	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.22	57	0.00	74	0.03	79	0.03	37	0.18	52	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		10	0.76	18	0.01	12	0.10	9	0.50	1	0.63	4	0.56
Rubinstein 1966		32	0.64	82	0.00	44	0.07	40	0.17	10	0.51	26	0.29
Schilhawsky 1960		64	0.46	83	0.00	69	0.03	76	0.03	76	0.03	77	0.03
Shebanova 2002		3	0.81	2	0.21	2	0.21	2	0.70	1	0.67	1	0.68
Smith 1975		25	0.67	34	0.00	38	0.07	41	0.17	67	0.03	51	0.07
Sokolov 2002		45	0.57	44	0.00	64	0.06	50	0.06	73	0.03	61	0.04
Sztompka 1959		69	0.45	22	0.01	77	0.02	83	0.02	67	0.04	73	0.03
Tomsic 1995		5	0.80	19	0.01	5	0.17	15	0.45	14	0.42	14	0.43
Uninsky 1932		76	0.38	37	0.00	81	0.02	81	0.02	62	0.04	80	0.03
Uninsky 1971		71	0.43	50	0.00	82	0.04	68	0.04	82	0.02	75	0.03
Wasowski 1980		60	0.48	76	0.00	66	0.03	72	0.03	70	0.04	69	0.03
Zak 1937		27	0.67	63	0.00	21	0.10	14	0.45	12	0.43	12	0.44
Zak 1951		19	0.70	15	0.01	15	0.07	8	0.52	12	0.46	8	0.49
Average		9	0.77	25	0.00	14	0.08	10	0.49	44	0.10	37	0.22
Random 1		88	-0.04	58	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	28	0.21	56	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.12	91	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	56	0.03	87	0.02
Random 3		87	0.01	84	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	39	0.14	58	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).