Schilhawsky 1960

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

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).