Paderewski 1930

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		49	0.53	66	0.00	57	0.03	57	0.03	56	0.04	71	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		54	0.51	49	0.00	37	0.05	34	0.15	55	0.04	38	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		17	0.64	32	0.00	22	0.06	12	0.39	42	0.11	19	0.21
Bacha 2000		64	0.44	90	0.00	72	0.03	68	0.03	62	0.04	60	0.03
Badura 1965		58	0.49	43	0.00	54	0.03	56	0.03	60	0.04	74	0.03
Barbosa 1983		62	0.45	69	0.00	42	0.04	40	0.10	74	0.03	51	0.05
Biret 1990		47	0.55	30	0.00	51	0.04	52	0.04	64	0.04	57	0.04
Blet 2003		22	0.61	2	0.10	5	0.11	14	0.38	30	0.21	13	0.28
Block 1995		27	0.60	15	0.01	30	0.06	31	0.16	17	0.30	17	0.22
Blumental 1952		59	0.47	7	0.04	11	0.07	25	0.23	17	0.30	16	0.26
Boshniakovich 1969		13	0.67	25	0.01	21	0.07	17	0.33	21	0.30	11	0.31
Brailowsky 1960		57	0.50	84	0.00	76	0.03	63	0.03	63	0.04	62	0.03
Bunin 1987		41	0.57	27	0.01	14	0.08	19	0.26	41	0.12	21	0.18
Bunin 1987b		40	0.57	10	0.04	13	0.07	20	0.26	42	0.12	20	0.18
Chiu 1999		80	0.32	50	0.00	69	0.02	76	0.02	74	0.03	81	0.02
Cohen 1997		66	0.43	67	0.00	55	0.04	51	0.04	26	0.27	33	0.10
Cortot 1951		7	0.69	16	0.01	8	0.10	5	0.45	17	0.43	3	0.44
Csalog 1996		70	0.42	70	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	58	0.05	70	0.03
Czerny 1949		32	0.59	34	0.00	38	0.05	35	0.14	54	0.06	34	0.09
Czerny 1990		14	0.66	52	0.00	36	0.05	33	0.15	67	0.04	39	0.08
Duchoud 2007		44	0.55	91	0.00	59	0.03	64	0.03	73	0.03	72	0.03
Ezaki 2006		20	0.62	78	0.00	50	0.04	50	0.04	76	0.03	59	0.03
Falvay 1989		43	0.55	79	0.00	66	0.02	81	0.02	65	0.04	66	0.03
Farrell 1958		21	0.61	11	0.03	17	0.09	16	0.34	10	0.30	10	0.32
Ferenczy 1958		12	0.67	73	0.00	23	0.08	11	0.39	24	0.36	8	0.37
Fliere 1977		11	0.68	35	0.00	28	0.07	18	0.26	72	0.04	31	0.10
Fou 1978		63	0.45	60	0.00	67	0.02	83	0.02	60	0.05	67	0.03
Francois 1956		37	0.57	44	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.09	61	0.04	48	0.06
Friedman 1923		87	0.12	47	0.00	35	0.05	38	0.12	35	0.22	25	0.16
Friedman 1923b		86	0.12	19	0.01	32	0.06	37	0.13	33	0.21	23	0.17
Friedman 1930		71	0.42	3	0.10	4	0.11	13	0.38	19	0.37	7	0.37
Garcia 2007		83	0.28	80	0.00	79	0.02	80	0.02	55	0.04	73	0.03
Garcia 2007b		88	0.10	76	0.00	64	0.03	65	0.03	37	0.11	49	0.06
Gierzod 1998		9	0.68	29	0.01	18	0.07	15	0.37	34	0.18	15	0.26
Gornostaeva 1994		26	0.60	38	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	57	0.04	47	0.06
Groot 1988		16	0.64	62	0.00	47	0.06	47	0.06	76	0.03	58	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		69	0.42	46	0.00	48	0.07	46	0.07	65	0.03	52	0.05
Hatto 1993		84	0.27	53	0.00	62	0.04	53	0.04	77	0.02	76	0.03
Hatto 1997		78	0.33	61	0.00	41	0.05	42	0.10	53	0.04	44	0.06
Horowitz 1949		67	0.43	42	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	81	0.03	88	0.02
Indjic 1988		81	0.28	65	0.00	61	0.03	70	0.03	78	0.02	89	0.02
Kapell 1951		4	0.72	14	0.02	6	0.11	2	0.50	27	0.36	5	0.42
Kissin 1993		23	0.61	13	0.03	29	0.06	39	0.11	51	0.05	40	0.07
Kushner 1989		25	0.61	72	0.00	52	0.04	55	0.04	66	0.04	53	0.04
Luisada 1991		60	0.45	85	0.00	65	0.02	78	0.02	75	0.03	79	0.02
Lushtak 2004		39	0.57	22	0.01	15	0.10	10	0.39	61	0.04	30	0.12
Malcuzynski 1961		6	0.69	21	0.01	24	0.07	24	0.23	84	0.03	37	0.08
Magaloff 1978		8	0.68	39	0.00	27	0.09	26	0.23	59	0.03	36	0.08
Magin 1975		68	0.43	36	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	83	0.02	85	0.02
Michalowski 1933		50	0.53	18	0.01	9	0.12	8	0.42	14	0.44	4	0.43
Milkina 1970		38	0.57	63	0.00	60	0.03	67	0.03	62	0.04	68	0.03
Mohovich 1999		19	0.63	26	0.01	40	0.05	36	0.13	68	0.03	46	0.06
Moravec 1969		35	0.59	24	0.01	53	0.03	60	0.03	41	0.11	43	0.06
Morozova 2008		72	0.41	87	0.00	80	0.03	69	0.03	82	0.02	90	0.02
Neighaus 1950		36	0.58	59	0.00	34	0.06	28	0.18	69	0.03	42	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		65	0.43	17	0.01	81	0.02	72	0.02	81	0.02	84	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		33	0.59	33	0.00	56	0.04	54	0.04	66	0.03	69	0.03
Osinska 1989		3	0.73	6	0.06	2	0.11	6	0.44	14	0.38	6	0.41
Pachmann 1927		73	0.39	20	0.01	39	0.05	41	0.10	45	0.10	32	0.10
Paderewski 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Perlemuter 1992		56	0.50	56	0.00	58	0.03	59	0.03	81	0.03	61	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		52	0.52	58	0.00	68	0.02	79	0.02	80	0.03	82	0.02
Poblocka 1999		1	0.75	1	0.12	1	0.12	4	0.49	18	0.41	2	0.45
Rabcewiczowa 1932		15	0.65	31	0.00	19	0.08	9	0.40	24	0.33	9	0.36
Rachmaninoff 1923		79	0.33	48	0.00	82	0.03	62	0.03	84	0.03	65	0.03
Rangell 2001		18	0.64	28	0.01	20	0.07	23	0.24	47	0.07	29	0.13
Richter 1976		53	0.51	51	0.00	70	0.02	73	0.02	34	0.13	50	0.05
Rosen 1989		29	0.60	37	0.00	16	0.07	22	0.26	30	0.28	14	0.27
Rosenthal 1930		45	0.55	71	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	49	0.05	45	0.06
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.38	81	0.00	46	0.05	48	0.05	66	0.03	55	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.37	68	0.00	78	0.03	58	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		28	0.60	5	0.06	26	0.07	29	0.18	34	0.19	22	0.18
Rosenthal 1931d		61	0.45	82	0.00	77	0.03	71	0.03	68	0.03	75	0.03
Rossi 2007		82	0.28	54	0.00	74	0.02	74	0.02	48	0.04	64	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		85	0.20	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	76	0.03	83	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		48	0.55	64	0.00	75	0.02	77	0.02	55	0.06	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		42	0.56	88	0.00	63	0.03	61	0.03	59	0.05	56	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		30	0.60	12	0.03	25	0.07	21	0.26	43	0.10	24	0.16
Shebanova 2002		31	0.60	8	0.04	12	0.08	30	0.17	41	0.12	27	0.14
Smith 1975		5	0.70	4	0.08	3	0.14	1	0.55	40	0.16	12	0.30
Sokolov 2002		46	0.55	75	0.00	73	0.03	66	0.03	79	0.03	63	0.03
Sztompka 1959		10	0.68	9	0.04	7	0.10	3	0.49	14	0.44	1	0.46
Tomsic 1995		34	0.59	57	0.00	49	0.04	49	0.04	48	0.05	54	0.04
Uninsky 1932		51	0.52	45	0.00	33	0.05	32	0.15	41	0.15	26	0.15
Uninsky 1971		24	0.61	40	0.00	31	0.06	27	0.22	38	0.21	18	0.21
Wasowski 1980		55	0.51	55	0.00	71	0.02	75	0.02	83	0.03	80	0.02
Zak 1937		74	0.39	86	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.03	86	0.02
Zak 1951		75	0.38	89	0.00	86	0.02	82	0.02	79	0.03	87	0.02
Average		2	0.74	41	0.00	10	0.12	7	0.44	60	0.04	28	0.13
Random 1		91	-0.14	74	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	54	0.04	91	0.02
Random 2		89	0.09	23	0.01	88	0.02	89	0.02	7	0.45	35	0.09
Random 3		90	0.09	77	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	25	0.23	41	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).