Milkina 1970

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		28	0.66	36	0.00	54	0.04	61	0.04	55	0.04	62	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		67	0.46	26	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	77	0.03	77	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		43	0.61	32	0.00	45	0.08	41	0.16	64	0.03	51	0.07
Bacha 2000		16	0.73	40	0.00	20	0.07	19	0.37	4	0.53	8	0.44
Badura 1965		70	0.45	65	0.00	53	0.04	66	0.04	55	0.04	64	0.04
Barbosa 1983		66	0.46	44	0.00	57	0.05	51	0.05	70	0.03	59	0.04
Biret 1990		25	0.67	49	0.00	36	0.06	26	0.26	32	0.19	35	0.22
Blet 2003		52	0.56	52	0.00	69	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.03	78	0.03
Block 1995		21	0.68	85	0.00	35	0.08	27	0.26	19	0.30	30	0.28
Blumental 1952		82	0.30	25	0.00	61	0.04	60	0.04	44	0.08	52	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		35	0.63	79	0.00	32	0.06	28	0.26	14	0.35	28	0.30
Brailowsky 1960		13	0.75	22	0.01	11	0.11	7	0.49	3	0.53	6	0.51
Bunin 1987		74	0.43	31	0.00	82	0.03	73	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03
Bunin 1987b		73	0.44	37	0.00	81	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03	72	0.03
Chiu 1999		61	0.51	66	0.00	18	0.08	14	0.42	16	0.42	12	0.42
Cohen 1997		57	0.52	14	0.02	34	0.08	32	0.22	3	0.53	21	0.34
Cortot 1951		63	0.50	55	0.00	78	0.03	75	0.03	66	0.04	86	0.03
Csalog 1996		23	0.67	34	0.00	33	0.06	31	0.24	10	0.50	19	0.35
Czerny 1949		71	0.45	11	0.02	46	0.06	48	0.06	45	0.09	50	0.07
Czerny 1990		36	0.63	74	0.00	55	0.05	54	0.05	62	0.04	66	0.04
Duchoud 2007		46	0.60	59	0.00	65	0.05	52	0.05	74	0.03	63	0.04
Ezaki 2006		34	0.64	18	0.01	52	0.05	58	0.05	66	0.04	55	0.04
Falvay 1989		3	0.79	4	0.10	2	0.18	1	0.66	1	0.67	1	0.66
Farrell 1958		22	0.68	27	0.00	56	0.06	49	0.06	42	0.11	48	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		65	0.48	53	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	82	0.02	89	0.02
Fliere 1977		14	0.75	78	0.00	16	0.08	8	0.46	26	0.23	22	0.33
Fou 1978		12	0.75	1	0.15	1	0.15	3	0.59	4	0.55	5	0.57
Francois 1956		39	0.63	12	0.02	42	0.07	44	0.14	44	0.10	41	0.12
Friedman 1923		91	-0.12	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1923b		90	-0.12	88	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	80	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1930		87	-0.01	70	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.02	88	0.02
Garcia 2007		81	0.30	58	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	67	0.04	81	0.03
Garcia 2007b		86	0.08	54	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	65	0.03	87	0.03
Gierzod 1998		40	0.62	21	0.01	43	0.05	45	0.14	46	0.05	49	0.08
Gornostaeva 1994		24	0.67	41	0.00	38	0.06	34	0.21	35	0.19	37	0.20
Groot 1988		4	0.79	16	0.01	10	0.10	9	0.45	19	0.37	14	0.41
Harasiewicz 1955		72	0.44	15	0.01	26	0.06	30	0.25	55	0.04	44	0.10
Hatto 1993		79	0.36	39	0.00	62	0.04	64	0.04	57	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1997		77	0.40	45	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	67	0.03	79	0.03
Horowitz 1949		30	0.65	71	0.00	27	0.06	23	0.30	15	0.35	24	0.32
Indjic 1988		78	0.38	64	0.00	63	0.05	56	0.05	68	0.03	58	0.04
Kapell 1951		50	0.57	29	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	69	0.03	71	0.03
Kissin 1993		2	0.80	2	0.13	3	0.27	5	0.58	3	0.62	3	0.60
Kushner 1989		15	0.74	23	0.01	17	0.07	15	0.41	13	0.39	16	0.40
Luisada 1991		38	0.63	3	0.11	7	0.14	20	0.36	14	0.40	18	0.38
Lushtak 2004		62	0.50	82	0.00	60	0.05	55	0.05	58	0.04	65	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.78	67	0.00	23	0.06	24	0.29	38	0.13	38	0.19
Magaloff 1978		6	0.79	62	0.00	8	0.13	13	0.42	20	0.38	15	0.40
Magin 1975		45	0.60	75	0.00	31	0.06	39	0.18	25	0.22	36	0.20
Michalowski 1933		83	0.16	73	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.03
Milkina 1970		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Mohovich 1999		18	0.71	50	0.00	41	0.07	43	0.15	44	0.08	42	0.11
Moravec 1969		17	0.71	10	0.02	22	0.06	22	0.33	12	0.46	17	0.39
Morozova 2008		58	0.52	20	0.01	19	0.07	25	0.26	17	0.22	32	0.24
Neighaus 1950		29	0.66	56	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.20	52	0.05	43	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		56	0.54	80	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	36	0.16	47	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		26	0.66	28	0.00	44	0.06	40	0.17	34	0.18	39	0.17
Osinska 1989		19	0.70	24	0.00	24	0.06	21	0.34	17	0.34	20	0.34
Pachmann 1927		51	0.56	77	0.00	40	0.08	42	0.16	19	0.42	31	0.26
Paderewski 1930		49	0.57	46	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	67	0.03	73	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.56	57	0.00	48	0.05	50	0.05	52	0.05	53	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		37	0.63	38	0.00	12	0.09	16	0.40	5	0.48	9	0.44
Poblocka 1999		31	0.65	89	0.00	58	0.04	65	0.04	80	0.03	67	0.03
Rabcewiczowa 1932		69	0.46	42	0.00	70	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.03	70	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		75	0.42	43	0.00	68	0.04	67	0.04	77	0.03	69	0.03
Rangell 2001		9	0.78	13	0.02	6	0.15	12	0.43	6	0.45	10	0.44
Richter 1976		41	0.61	90	0.00	49	0.06	46	0.06	32	0.14	45	0.09
Rosen 1989		20	0.69	68	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.19	35	0.25	34	0.22
Rosenthal 1930		59	0.52	76	0.00	73	0.03	74	0.03	74	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		54	0.56	35	0.00	29	0.06	33	0.22	16	0.40	27	0.30
Rosenthal 1931b		55	0.55	87	0.00	30	0.07	35	0.21	16	0.40	29	0.29
Rosenthal 1931c		42	0.61	60	0.00	47	0.05	59	0.05	53	0.05	54	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		33	0.64	30	0.00	21	0.07	29	0.25	11	0.41	25	0.32
Rossi 2007		84	0.12	81	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	64	0.03	68	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		60	0.52	8	0.03	28	0.06	38	0.19	2	0.56	23	0.33
Rubinstein 1952		1	0.82	5	0.08	4	0.20	2	0.60	2	0.63	2	0.61
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.76	17	0.01	25	0.06	18	0.38	6	0.57	7	0.47
Schilhawsky 1960		64	0.48	47	0.00	74	0.04	68	0.04	65	0.04	60	0.04
Shebanova 2002		7	0.78	9	0.03	5	0.14	4	0.59	2	0.58	4	0.58
Smith 1975		48	0.59	48	0.00	51	0.05	57	0.05	78	0.03	57	0.04
Sokolov 2002		47	0.59	19	0.01	66	0.05	53	0.05	66	0.04	56	0.04
Sztompka 1959		76	0.41	91	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	79	0.03	74	0.03
Tomsic 1995		11	0.75	7	0.06	13	0.08	17	0.38	28	0.26	26	0.31
Uninsky 1932		80	0.32	63	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03
Uninsky 1971		68	0.46	72	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.03	76	0.03
Wasowski 1980		44	0.60	51	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	22	0.24	40	0.12
Zak 1937		27	0.66	61	0.00	15	0.08	10	0.45	14	0.41	11	0.43
Zak 1951		32	0.65	33	0.00	14	0.07	11	0.44	16	0.41	13	0.42
Average		5	0.79	6	0.06	9	0.09	6	0.50	42	0.11	33	0.23
Random 1		88	-0.03	83	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	14	0.39	46	0.09
Random 2		89	-0.04	69	0.00	89	0.02	86	0.02	45	0.09	61	0.04
Random 3		85	0.11	84	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	53	0.05	83	0.03

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).