Osinska 1989

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		6	0.77	46	0.00	12	0.09	6	0.47	15	0.35	8	0.41
Anderszewski 2003		73	0.44	66	0.00	73	0.04	52	0.04	74	0.03	81	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		49	0.58	74	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.13	68	0.03	59	0.06
Bacha 2000		64	0.49	61	0.00	54	0.04	67	0.04	34	0.20	45	0.09
Badura 1965		43	0.60	54	0.00	36	0.05	36	0.16	19	0.38	25	0.25
Barbosa 1983		55	0.55	69	0.00	51	0.05	51	0.05	45	0.17	46	0.09
Biret 1990		9	0.76	2	0.13	2	0.13	2	0.59	4	0.52	2	0.55
Blet 2003		35	0.64	58	0.00	42	0.04	45	0.08	66	0.04	58	0.06
Block 1995		42	0.61	43	0.00	59	0.04	61	0.04	28	0.24	44	0.10
Blumental 1952		68	0.47	10	0.02	20	0.08	22	0.30	12	0.33	18	0.31
Boshniakovich 1969		26	0.69	22	0.01	26	0.07	29	0.23	19	0.30	23	0.26
Brailowsky 1960		44	0.60	75	0.00	69	0.05	46	0.05	61	0.04	64	0.04
Bunin 1987		67	0.48	62	0.00	76	0.04	56	0.04	61	0.04	72	0.04
Bunin 1987b		66	0.48	67	0.00	75	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.03
Chiu 1999		62	0.50	68	0.00	48	0.04	65	0.04	44	0.10	57	0.06
Cohen 1997		76	0.41	24	0.01	62	0.04	54	0.04	15	0.40	38	0.13
Cortot 1951		17	0.72	18	0.01	18	0.12	8	0.42	2	0.54	4	0.48
Csalog 1996		51	0.56	39	0.00	65	0.04	60	0.04	15	0.44	37	0.13
Czerny 1949		3	0.79	1	0.16	1	0.16	4	0.55	11	0.51	3	0.53
Czerny 1990		1	0.81	44	0.00	7	0.09	7	0.46	27	0.25	17	0.34
Duchoud 2007		46	0.59	64	0.00	47	0.04	62	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.04
Ezaki 2006		19	0.71	27	0.01	32	0.08	18	0.34	59	0.04	39	0.12
Falvay 1989		20	0.71	52	0.00	29	0.07	27	0.25	36	0.15	32	0.19
Farrell 1958		36	0.63	14	0.01	24	0.07	28	0.24	7	0.37	19	0.30
Ferenczy 1958		45	0.60	19	0.01	40	0.05	37	0.16	30	0.28	30	0.21
Fliere 1977		7	0.76	63	0.00	16	0.11	12	0.38	44	0.12	29	0.21
Fou 1978		54	0.55	7	0.06	34	0.06	39	0.15	37	0.22	33	0.18
Francois 1956		16	0.73	13	0.02	10	0.08	10	0.39	19	0.31	14	0.35
Friedman 1923		88	0.05	82	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	75	0.05	85	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.05	73	0.00	89	0.02	85	0.02	65	0.05	82	0.03
Friedman 1930		81	0.31	53	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	52	0.05	67	0.04
Garcia 2007		83	0.26	59	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	81	0.02	88	0.02
Garcia 2007b		86	0.13	85	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	73	0.03	90	0.02
Gierzod 1998		27	0.68	86	0.00	27	0.07	23	0.30	25	0.21	24	0.25
Gornostaeva 1994		4	0.78	11	0.02	11	0.10	13	0.38	19	0.32	13	0.35
Groot 1988		23	0.69	55	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.16	49	0.05	48	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		69	0.46	45	0.00	58	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.03	83	0.03
Hatto 1993		85	0.19	87	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	89	0.02	89	0.02
Hatto 1997		82	0.28	15	0.01	57	0.04	59	0.04	50	0.04	68	0.04
Horowitz 1949		61	0.52	42	0.00	68	0.04	58	0.04	73	0.03	77	0.03
Indjic 1988		84	0.20	88	0.00	80	0.04	68	0.04	84	0.02	79	0.03
Kapell 1951		25	0.69	78	0.00	31	0.07	31	0.21	33	0.27	26	0.24
Kissin 1993		21	0.70	35	0.00	30	0.06	24	0.29	33	0.23	21	0.26
Kushner 1989		5	0.78	8	0.02	8	0.08	16	0.37	23	0.32	15	0.34
Luisada 1991		50	0.58	9	0.02	22	0.07	34	0.17	42	0.12	36	0.14
Lushtak 2004		57	0.54	41	0.00	35	0.05	30	0.22	64	0.04	47	0.09
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.74	34	0.00	21	0.08	20	0.32	33	0.18	27	0.24
Magaloff 1978		24	0.69	20	0.01	38	0.05	35	0.16	49	0.04	49	0.08
Magin 1975		75	0.43	28	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	78	0.02	87	0.02
Michalowski 1933		72	0.44	17	0.01	63	0.05	49	0.05	45	0.09	55	0.07
Milkina 1970		22	0.70	26	0.01	28	0.07	17	0.34	21	0.34	16	0.34
Mohovich 1999		28	0.67	32	0.00	43	0.04	40	0.13	39	0.11	40	0.12
Moravec 1969		13	0.74	23	0.01	14	0.12	15	0.38	5	0.53	5	0.45
Morozova 2008		40	0.62	49	0.00	9	0.08	26	0.26	30	0.16	31	0.20
Neighaus 1950		37	0.63	30	0.00	25	0.09	19	0.33	35	0.22	20	0.27
Niedzielski 1931		65	0.49	50	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	66	0.03	86	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		33	0.64	37	0.00	46	0.04	57	0.04	44	0.12	54	0.07
Osinska 1989		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Pachmann 1927		77	0.39	89	0.00	74	0.03	75	0.03	59	0.04	78	0.03
Paderewski 1930		15	0.73	3	0.10	5	0.11	14	0.38	6	0.44	7	0.41
Perlemuter 1992		59	0.53	33	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	83	0.03	74	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		31	0.67	70	0.00	53	0.05	48	0.05	41	0.10	52	0.07
Poblocka 1999		11	0.74	31	0.00	17	0.09	9	0.42	19	0.40	6	0.41
Rabcewiczowa 1932		10	0.75	71	0.00	15	0.12	11	0.38	17	0.41	9	0.39
Rachmaninoff 1923		74	0.44	83	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	53	0.04	75	0.03
Rangell 2001		38	0.63	29	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.20	40	0.14	34	0.17
Richter 1976		60	0.52	56	0.00	70	0.04	71	0.04	45	0.07	60	0.05
Rosen 1989		8	0.76	4	0.08	3	0.11	3	0.58	4	0.64	1	0.61
Rosenthal 1930		48	0.58	47	0.00	64	0.04	72	0.04	57	0.04	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.38	84	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	63	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		79	0.35	90	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	64	0.04	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		47	0.58	65	0.00	61	0.05	50	0.05	50	0.06	63	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.45	79	0.00	82	0.04	69	0.04	62	0.04	73	0.04
Rossi 2007		70	0.46	36	0.00	52	0.04	55	0.04	13	0.25	42	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.31	48	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	27	0.34	43	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		34	0.64	25	0.01	49	0.05	47	0.05	22	0.43	35	0.15
Rubinstein 1966		32	0.64	21	0.01	23	0.09	25	0.27	12	0.48	12	0.36
Schilhawsky 1960		52	0.56	60	0.00	60	0.04	53	0.04	49	0.06	61	0.05
Shebanova 2002		18	0.71	51	0.00	19	0.07	21	0.31	17	0.46	10	0.38
Smith 1975		12	0.74	6	0.06	6	0.14	5	0.53	19	0.26	11	0.37
Sokolov 2002		41	0.62	12	0.02	13	0.08	42	0.13	54	0.04	51	0.07
Sztompka 1959		29	0.67	40	0.00	37	0.05	33	0.20	32	0.29	28	0.24
Tomsic 1995		39	0.62	80	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.11	61	0.04	53	0.07
Uninsky 1932		63	0.49	57	0.00	66	0.03	77	0.03	52	0.05	69	0.04
Uninsky 1971		53	0.56	16	0.01	45	0.05	44	0.09	57	0.05	56	0.07
Wasowski 1980		30	0.67	38	0.00	50	0.04	64	0.04	13	0.32	41	0.11
Zak 1937		56	0.55	76	0.00	55	0.04	73	0.04	60	0.05	65	0.04
Zak 1951		58	0.54	72	0.00	56	0.04	66	0.04	50	0.05	66	0.04
Average		2	0.81	5	0.07	4	0.12	1	0.60	43	0.11	22	0.26
Random 1		91	-0.19	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	0.00	77	0.00	90	0.02	87	0.02	17	0.32	50	0.08
Random 3		89	0.04	81	0.00	87	0.02	90	0.02	36	0.14	62	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).