Poblocka 1999

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		17	0.72	51	0.00	33	0.07	23	0.32	30	0.23	31	0.27
Anderszewski 2003		50	0.60	7	0.03	8	0.08	20	0.33	14	0.48	18	0.40
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.73	9	0.02	10	0.09	7	0.51	13	0.45	7	0.48
Bacha 2000		34	0.66	55	0.00	60	0.04	64	0.04	21	0.33	46	0.11
Badura 1965		66	0.49	12	0.01	47	0.04	53	0.04	35	0.22	48	0.09
Barbosa 1983		54	0.57	27	0.01	25	0.06	25	0.30	15	0.41	21	0.35
Biret 1990		5	0.78	46	0.00	12	0.10	6	0.53	5	0.49	5	0.51
Blet 2003		12	0.74	52	0.00	17	0.08	10	0.48	15	0.40	14	0.44
Block 1995		65	0.51	56	0.00	80	0.03	73	0.03	48	0.04	80	0.03
Blumental 1952		76	0.43	30	0.00	32	0.08	39	0.15	19	0.24	35	0.19
Boshniakovich 1969		53	0.57	14	0.01	70	0.03	79	0.03	60	0.04	81	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		51	0.59	61	0.00	74	0.04	54	0.04	48	0.06	56	0.05
Bunin 1987		47	0.62	41	0.00	52	0.06	46	0.06	42	0.12	50	0.08
Bunin 1987b		46	0.62	45	0.00	51	0.03	68	0.03	41	0.12	54	0.06
Chiu 1999		75	0.43	62	0.00	61	0.04	55	0.04	60	0.04	60	0.04
Cohen 1997		69	0.48	18	0.01	7	0.08	42	0.13	6	0.48	33	0.25
Cortot 1951		15	0.73	33	0.00	22	0.10	15	0.43	9	0.48	13	0.45
Csalog 1996		25	0.69	2	0.14	2	0.14	22	0.32	3	0.57	15	0.43
Czerny 1949		48	0.61	82	0.00	42	0.05	36	0.17	34	0.20	37	0.18
Czerny 1990		16	0.72	79	0.00	26	0.08	17	0.42	31	0.23	28	0.31
Duchoud 2007		7	0.75	22	0.01	11	0.08	8	0.50	11	0.46	6	0.48
Ezaki 2006		8	0.75	13	0.01	20	0.10	11	0.48	28	0.24	24	0.34
Falvay 1989		30	0.68	35	0.00	34	0.06	28	0.25	40	0.13	36	0.18
Farrell 1958		35	0.66	49	0.00	63	0.04	50	0.04	39	0.11	52	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		3	0.81	4	0.05	4	0.12	4	0.57	2	0.64	2	0.60
Fliere 1977		6	0.76	10	0.01	27	0.09	21	0.33	50	0.05	43	0.13
Fou 1978		64	0.52	42	0.00	75	0.03	69	0.03	68	0.04	71	0.03
Francois 1956		45	0.62	60	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.15	40	0.12	45	0.13
Friedman 1923		89	0.10	75	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	62	0.05	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		88	0.11	76	0.00	87	0.03	85	0.03	72	0.05	65	0.04
Friedman 1930		83	0.31	67	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	43	0.09	58	0.05
Garcia 2007		77	0.43	63	0.00	66	0.03	77	0.03	39	0.17	53	0.07
Garcia 2007b		86	0.17	69	0.00	86	0.03	78	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.03
Gierzod 1998		14	0.73	11	0.01	28	0.11	16	0.43	7	0.38	19	0.40
Gornostaeva 1994		43	0.62	34	0.00	72	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.03	83	0.03
Groot 1988		27	0.68	25	0.01	57	0.04	62	0.04	53	0.04	66	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		80	0.36	38	0.00	56	0.03	75	0.03	76	0.03	85	0.03
Hatto 1993		73	0.46	37	0.00	16	0.11	32	0.24	10	0.42	26	0.32
Hatto 1997		57	0.55	5	0.05	9	0.09	27	0.28	12	0.43	22	0.35
Horowitz 1949		71	0.47	83	0.00	78	0.03	81	0.03	70	0.03	76	0.03
Indjic 1988		68	0.49	29	0.00	15	0.09	30	0.24	11	0.42	25	0.32
Kapell 1951		1	0.84	1	0.32	1	0.32	1	0.64	2	0.58	1	0.61
Kissin 1993		44	0.62	47	0.00	65	0.03	70	0.03	53	0.05	64	0.04
Kushner 1989		31	0.68	36	0.00	53	0.03	74	0.03	62	0.04	72	0.03
Luisada 1991		49	0.60	26	0.01	36	0.06	37	0.17	40	0.14	39	0.15
Lushtak 2004		20	0.71	6	0.05	3	0.13	3	0.58	6	0.54	3	0.56
Malcuzynski 1961		24	0.69	17	0.01	62	0.04	56	0.04	73	0.03	75	0.03
Magaloff 1978		29	0.68	39	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.11	54	0.04	51	0.07
Magin 1975		70	0.47	23	0.01	77	0.03	84	0.03	64	0.03	70	0.03
Michalowski 1933		67	0.49	28	0.01	18	0.08	14	0.44	8	0.46	12	0.45
Milkina 1970		36	0.65	85	0.00	71	0.03	80	0.03	65	0.04	74	0.03
Mohovich 1999		18	0.72	32	0.00	38	0.06	33	0.21	36	0.12	38	0.16
Moravec 1969		41	0.64	64	0.00	54	0.04	60	0.04	26	0.29	47	0.11
Morozova 2008		62	0.52	44	0.00	55	0.04	57	0.04	72	0.03	77	0.03
Neighaus 1950		32	0.66	68	0.00	40	0.04	43	0.12	41	0.17	42	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		61	0.54	65	0.00	68	0.05	48	0.05	15	0.33	44	0.13
Ohlsson 1999		4	0.80	16	0.01	6	0.10	5	0.55	7	0.54	4	0.54
Osinska 1989		11	0.74	31	0.00	24	0.07	19	0.40	9	0.42	16	0.41
Pachmann 1927		74	0.44	58	0.00	81	0.04	51	0.04	60	0.04	63	0.04
Paderewski 1930		9	0.75	8	0.03	19	0.08	18	0.41	4	0.49	11	0.45
Perlemuter 1992		59	0.54	24	0.01	50	0.03	76	0.03	53	0.05	59	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		63	0.52	80	0.00	73	0.04	59	0.04	73	0.03	69	0.03
Poblocka 1999		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rabcewiczowa 1932		37	0.65	59	0.00	39	0.06	35	0.21	23	0.35	29	0.27
Rachmaninoff 1923		79	0.40	84	0.00	69	0.04	58	0.04	82	0.03	68	0.03
Rangell 2001		28	0.68	19	0.01	44	0.04	44	0.11	34	0.19	41	0.14
Richter 1976		40	0.64	15	0.01	37	0.06	34	0.21	13	0.36	30	0.27
Rosen 1989		33	0.66	73	0.00	59	0.04	65	0.04	42	0.16	49	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		58	0.55	71	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.34	88	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.34	89	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.02	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		52	0.59	77	0.00	76	0.04	52	0.04	66	0.03	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.42	70	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		85	0.21	78	0.00	82	0.03	71	0.03	51	0.04	67	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		84	0.30	86	0.00	48	0.04	61	0.04	47	0.05	61	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		55	0.56	48	0.00	46	0.04	49	0.04	45	0.09	55	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		39	0.64	54	0.00	49	0.05	47	0.05	47	0.05	57	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		23	0.69	50	0.00	13	0.13	12	0.48	9	0.47	8	0.47
Shebanova 2002		21	0.71	21	0.01	30	0.07	26	0.28	20	0.43	23	0.35
Smith 1975		26	0.69	40	0.00	14	0.10	9	0.49	11	0.32	17	0.40
Sokolov 2002		19	0.72	87	0.00	35	0.07	29	0.25	32	0.27	32	0.26
Sztompka 1959		10	0.75	20	0.01	21	0.13	13	0.47	10	0.46	9	0.46
Tomsic 1995		22	0.70	66	0.00	41	0.04	41	0.15	39	0.13	40	0.14
Uninsky 1932		72	0.46	81	0.00	31	0.08	38	0.16	35	0.22	34	0.19
Uninsky 1971		38	0.65	53	0.00	23	0.09	24	0.32	23	0.40	20	0.36
Wasowski 1980		42	0.63	72	0.00	29	0.08	31	0.24	3	0.41	27	0.31
Zak 1937		56	0.56	57	0.00	64	0.03	67	0.03	64	0.04	73	0.03
Zak 1951		60	0.54	43	0.00	58	0.03	66	0.03	56	0.05	62	0.04
Average		2	0.83	3	0.05	5	0.17	2	0.59	13	0.36	10	0.46
Random 1		91	-0.11	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	80	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.06	74	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	46	0.05	78	0.03
Random 3		87	0.14	91	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	50	0.05	82	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).