Malcuzynski 1961

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		14	0.78	22	0.01	16	0.07	15	0.42	6	0.43	17	0.42
Anderszewski 2003		69	0.56	14	0.01	50	0.04	56	0.04	36	0.15	59	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		36	0.69	4	0.06	15	0.07	29	0.26	25	0.32	31	0.29
Bacha 2000		65	0.60	82	0.00	82	0.04	55	0.04	56	0.04	69	0.04
Badura 1965		67	0.59	74	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.12	6	0.55	34	0.26
Barbosa 1983		73	0.48	85	0.00	61	0.03	81	0.03	55	0.04	82	0.03
Biret 1990		33	0.70	76	0.00	70	0.05	51	0.05	51	0.04	76	0.04
Blet 2003		44	0.68	35	0.00	51	0.04	52	0.04	35	0.16	60	0.08
Block 1995		32	0.70	50	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.10	12	0.34	43	0.18
Blumental 1952		81	0.37	43	0.00	76	0.03	70	0.03	48	0.05	74	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		24	0.73	24	0.00	28	0.07	24	0.29	8	0.51	20	0.38
Brailowsky 1960		45	0.67	30	0.00	65	0.03	72	0.03	34	0.20	56	0.08
Bunin 1987		26	0.71	37	0.00	41	0.06	34	0.18	11	0.45	33	0.28
Bunin 1987b		25	0.71	41	0.00	40	0.05	32	0.18	11	0.45	32	0.28
Chiu 1999		75	0.46	70	0.00	69	0.04	62	0.04	53	0.05	71	0.04
Cohen 1997		83	0.30	62	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	74	0.03	91	0.02
Cortot 1951		55	0.64	55	0.00	73	0.04	63	0.04	45	0.12	65	0.07
Csalog 1996		74	0.48	83	0.00	87	0.03	78	0.03	70	0.03	83	0.03
Czerny 1949		28	0.71	8	0.02	12	0.09	11	0.46	6	0.57	8	0.51
Czerny 1990		9	0.83	3	0.07	6	0.12	3	0.62	3	0.58	4	0.60
Duchoud 2007		46	0.67	51	0.00	52	0.05	50	0.05	51	0.05	67	0.05
Ezaki 2006		8	0.84	10	0.02	5	0.16	4	0.61	3	0.59	3	0.60
Falvay 1989		21	0.74	54	0.00	22	0.06	21	0.30	19	0.31	27	0.30
Farrell 1958		34	0.69	63	0.00	74	0.04	53	0.04	40	0.11	63	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		71	0.53	86	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	65	0.03	85	0.03
Fliere 1977		3	0.85	27	0.00	8	0.13	8	0.50	7	0.45	13	0.47
Fou 1978		37	0.69	20	0.01	24	0.06	28	0.26	25	0.35	28	0.30
Francois 1956		18	0.76	7	0.02	10	0.09	10	0.47	8	0.49	12	0.48
Friedman 1923		87	0.23	80	0.00	79	0.04	59	0.04	23	0.34	46	0.12
Friedman 1923b		86	0.24	90	0.00	78	0.03	77	0.03	22	0.34	53	0.10
Friedman 1930		77	0.39	44	0.00	58	0.03	74	0.03	25	0.34	52	0.10
Garcia 2007		79	0.37	87	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	65	0.04	86	0.03
Garcia 2007b		88	0.21	66	0.00	85	0.03	86	0.03	48	0.05	77	0.04
Gierzod 1998		17	0.77	33	0.00	26	0.07	20	0.31	12	0.35	26	0.33
Gornostaeva 1994		6	0.84	12	0.02	3	0.14	6	0.56	2	0.59	5	0.57
Groot 1988		4	0.85	18	0.01	11	0.10	12	0.45	7	0.50	15	0.47
Harasiewicz 1955		59	0.63	2	0.23	2	0.26	5	0.57	2	0.56	6	0.56
Hatto 1993		82	0.35	78	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	61	0.03	87	0.03
Hatto 1997		76	0.42	31	0.00	60	0.04	67	0.04	68	0.03	84	0.03
Horowitz 1949		27	0.71	15	0.01	31	0.06	23	0.30	4	0.53	19	0.40
Indjic 1988		80	0.37	91	0.00	66	0.03	85	0.03	64	0.03	81	0.03
Kapell 1951		31	0.70	28	0.00	59	0.03	75	0.03	42	0.15	64	0.07
Kissin 1993		15	0.78	6	0.03	14	0.08	14	0.43	7	0.54	11	0.48
Kushner 1989		7	0.84	38	0.00	9	0.14	9	0.50	3	0.58	7	0.54
Luisada 1991		61	0.61	75	0.00	62	0.04	58	0.04	51	0.05	70	0.04
Lushtak 2004		56	0.63	21	0.01	45	0.05	44	0.10	49	0.06	62	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Magaloff 1978		2	0.87	13	0.02	7	0.12	7	0.50	3	0.51	10	0.50
Magin 1975		42	0.68	5	0.03	17	0.07	27	0.26	4	0.43	25	0.33
Michalowski 1933		78	0.38	71	0.00	38	0.05	45	0.09	48	0.07	58	0.08
Milkina 1970		13	0.78	60	0.00	35	0.05	38	0.13	24	0.29	42	0.19
Mohovich 1999		12	0.81	67	0.00	18	0.07	18	0.37	12	0.45	18	0.41
Moravec 1969		41	0.68	48	0.00	57	0.03	82	0.03	27	0.24	55	0.08
Morozova 2008		62	0.60	46	0.00	47	0.06	48	0.06	42	0.11	61	0.08
Neighaus 1950		5	0.85	9	0.02	4	0.15	2	0.62	2	0.65	2	0.63
Niedzielski 1931		70	0.55	23	0.01	77	0.03	83	0.03	62	0.03	80	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		29	0.71	52	0.00	64	0.03	76	0.03	53	0.06	72	0.04
Osinska 1989		23	0.74	57	0.00	36	0.07	33	0.18	20	0.32	36	0.24
Pachmann 1927		72	0.52	56	0.00	71	0.04	60	0.04	31	0.24	51	0.10
Paderewski 1930		35	0.69	26	0.00	63	0.03	84	0.03	24	0.23	57	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		54	0.64	34	0.00	27	0.07	31	0.21	24	0.30	35	0.25
Pierdomenico 2008		39	0.68	73	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.21	9	0.40	29	0.29
Poblocka 1999		38	0.69	32	0.00	72	0.03	73	0.03	56	0.04	79	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		51	0.65	79	0.00	55	0.04	61	0.04	27	0.26	49	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		53	0.64	25	0.00	21	0.08	26	0.28	8	0.40	24	0.33
Rangell 2001		19	0.75	53	0.00	32	0.06	35	0.17	24	0.23	41	0.20
Richter 1976		57	0.63	77	0.00	54	0.05	49	0.05	26	0.20	50	0.10
Rosen 1989		11	0.81	61	0.00	13	0.09	13	0.44	5	0.59	9	0.51
Rosenthal 1930		30	0.71	36	0.00	37	0.05	36	0.16	6	0.54	30	0.29
Rosenthal 1931		60	0.62	88	0.00	42	0.05	39	0.13	15	0.41	38	0.23
Rosenthal 1931b		63	0.60	58	0.00	48	0.07	46	0.07	15	0.40	44	0.17
Rosenthal 1931c		20	0.75	17	0.01	25	0.07	19	0.36	9	0.53	16	0.44
Rosenthal 1931d		52	0.64	65	0.00	49	0.04	66	0.04	22	0.32	47	0.11
Rossi 2007		84	0.30	89	0.00	53	0.04	54	0.04	17	0.24	48	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		85	0.25	81	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	83	0.03	88	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		64	0.60	49	0.00	81	0.04	57	0.04	50	0.07	68	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		58	0.63	68	0.00	75	0.04	65	0.04	52	0.05	73	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		43	0.68	29	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	29	0.24	45	0.13
Shebanova 2002		50	0.66	64	0.00	68	0.03	68	0.03	46	0.09	66	0.05
Smith 1975		22	0.74	47	0.00	20	0.09	16	0.42	16	0.29	22	0.35
Sokolov 2002		16	0.77	11	0.02	30	0.09	25	0.28	15	0.44	21	0.35
Sztompka 1959		48	0.66	40	0.00	56	0.03	69	0.03	34	0.25	54	0.09
Tomsic 1995		10	0.82	72	0.00	19	0.11	17	0.41	9	0.53	14	0.47
Uninsky 1932		66	0.60	42	0.00	34	0.05	42	0.11	10	0.45	39	0.22
Uninsky 1971		49	0.66	16	0.01	33	0.06	37	0.14	24	0.40	37	0.24
Wasowski 1980		68	0.58	19	0.01	80	0.03	71	0.03	54	0.04	78	0.03
Zak 1937		47	0.67	69	0.00	39	0.04	41	0.12	19	0.33	40	0.20
Zak 1951		40	0.68	39	0.00	23	0.07	22	0.30	19	0.39	23	0.34
Average		1	0.91	1	0.26	1	0.25	1	0.73	6	0.58	1	0.65
Random 1		90	-0.08	45	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	64	0.04	90	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.09	59	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	59	0.03	89	0.02
Random 3		89	0.09	84	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	45	0.08	75	0.04

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).