Smith 1975

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		40	0.68	37	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.13	20	0.30	44	0.20
Anderszewski 2003		21	0.72	23	0.01	12	0.08	10	0.33	3	0.57	7	0.43
Ashkenazy 1981		26	0.71	43	0.00	5	0.08	8	0.35	12	0.45	10	0.40
Bacha 2000		78	0.43	89	0.00	82	0.03	68	0.03	59	0.04	82	0.03
Badura 1965		53	0.60	68	0.00	53	0.05	49	0.05	14	0.41	49	0.14
Barbosa 1983		51	0.61	46	0.00	59	0.05	50	0.05	28	0.32	50	0.13
Biret 1990		38	0.68	41	0.00	39	0.05	31	0.20	9	0.43	33	0.29
Blet 2003		14	0.73	3	0.05	3	0.10	2	0.45	4	0.54	2	0.49
Block 1995		50	0.62	50	0.00	49	0.04	59	0.04	3	0.42	54	0.13
Blumental 1952		76	0.45	6	0.02	10	0.08	39	0.17	10	0.35	40	0.24
Boshniakovich 1969		48	0.63	90	0.00	52	0.04	54	0.04	23	0.26	63	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		49	0.63	20	0.01	67	0.03	73	0.03	39	0.13	71	0.06
Bunin 1987		18	0.73	29	0.00	33	0.05	22	0.26	9	0.46	20	0.35
Bunin 1987b		19	0.73	81	0.00	34	0.06	23	0.26	9	0.46	17	0.35
Chiu 1999		63	0.55	73	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	43	0.11	72	0.06
Cohen 1997		82	0.38	54	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	30	0.25	66	0.09
Cortot 1951		44	0.66	11	0.02	11	0.08	29	0.23	6	0.50	24	0.34
Csalog 1996		85	0.29	80	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	69	0.03	89	0.02
Czerny 1949		11	0.74	47	0.00	19	0.04	14	0.30	12	0.49	14	0.38
Czerny 1990		4	0.77	72	0.00	26	0.05	13	0.30	14	0.39	23	0.34
Duchoud 2007		36	0.68	62	0.00	30	0.05	17	0.28	15	0.44	19	0.35
Ezaki 2006		2	0.84	10	0.02	2	0.20	4	0.43	9	0.51	4	0.47
Falvay 1989		32	0.70	2	0.07	13	0.06	34	0.19	22	0.31	38	0.24
Farrell 1958		45	0.66	56	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	2	0.58	46	0.17
Ferenczy 1958		37	0.68	4	0.03	18	0.05	36	0.19	4	0.56	25	0.33
Fliere 1977		3	0.77	38	0.00	24	0.06	20	0.26	21	0.30	34	0.28
Fou 1978		60	0.58	33	0.00	57	0.04	55	0.04	40	0.18	68	0.08
Francois 1956		30	0.70	39	0.00	8	0.08	30	0.22	15	0.33	36	0.27
Friedman 1923		87	0.22	74	0.00	72	0.03	79	0.03	15	0.43	62	0.11
Friedman 1923b		86	0.22	82	0.00	71	0.03	69	0.03	15	0.42	61	0.11
Friedman 1930		71	0.50	35	0.00	50	0.04	57	0.04	8	0.45	51	0.13
Garcia 2007		75	0.45	85	0.00	83	0.03	71	0.03	11	0.40	60	0.11
Garcia 2007b		84	0.36	70	0.00	81	0.02	82	0.02	4	0.44	67	0.09
Gierzod 1998		25	0.71	5	0.02	14	0.07	24	0.26	6	0.40	27	0.32
Gornostaeva 1994		5	0.77	8	0.02	9	0.09	12	0.31	6	0.50	13	0.39
Groot 1988		33	0.69	51	0.00	32	0.05	32	0.20	23	0.30	41	0.24
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.74	14	0.01	7	0.09	7	0.37	7	0.44	11	0.40
Hatto 1993		83	0.38	57	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	17	0.35	58	0.12
Hatto 1997		77	0.45	69	0.00	48	0.05	52	0.05	14	0.40	48	0.14
Horowitz 1949		74	0.46	65	0.00	85	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.03	87	0.03
Indjic 1988		81	0.38	64	0.00	69	0.02	84	0.02	16	0.39	65	0.09
Kapell 1951		17	0.73	15	0.01	17	0.06	15	0.29	8	0.52	12	0.39
Kissin 1993		41	0.67	28	0.00	55	0.03	67	0.03	41	0.17	70	0.07
Kushner 1989		16	0.73	48	0.00	36	0.06	37	0.19	15	0.37	35	0.27
Luisada 1991		23	0.71	30	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	13	0.40	43	0.20
Lushtak 2004		20	0.72	36	0.00	6	0.10	3	0.43	5	0.56	3	0.49
Malcuzynski 1961		9	0.74	32	0.00	23	0.04	16	0.29	16	0.42	18	0.35
Magaloff 1978		27	0.71	31	0.00	20	0.04	25	0.26	18	0.40	26	0.32
Magin 1975		58	0.58	86	0.00	73	0.02	83	0.02	33	0.20	73	0.06
Michalowski 1933		54	0.59	44	0.00	28	0.06	26	0.25	12	0.45	22	0.34
Milkina 1970		56	0.59	45	0.00	66	0.03	78	0.03	57	0.05	78	0.04
Mohovich 1999		7	0.74	63	0.00	21	0.04	21	0.26	24	0.33	32	0.29
Moravec 1969		66	0.55	77	0.00	77	0.02	85	0.02	46	0.05	83	0.03
Morozova 2008		31	0.70	83	0.00	37	0.05	33	0.20	8	0.35	37	0.26
Neighaus 1950		22	0.72	17	0.01	4	0.09	5	0.42	8	0.52	5	0.47
Niedzielski 1931		80	0.42	66	0.00	86	0.03	72	0.03	46	0.05	77	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		39	0.68	60	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.11	19	0.31	45	0.18
Osinska 1989		6	0.74	16	0.01	35	0.06	19	0.26	5	0.53	15	0.37
Pachmann 1927		79	0.42	55	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	54	0.05	80	0.04
Paderewski 1930		28	0.70	34	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.16	1	0.55	30	0.30
Perlemuter 1992		10	0.74	52	0.00	31	0.05	27	0.25	8	0.45	21	0.34
Pierdomenico 2008		29	0.70	42	0.00	54	0.05	51	0.05	27	0.26	59	0.11
Poblocka 1999		35	0.69	27	0.00	15	0.06	11	0.32	9	0.49	8	0.40
Rabcewiczowa 1932		34	0.69	18	0.01	43	0.05	44	0.11	6	0.48	42	0.23
Rachmaninoff 1923		67	0.54	75	0.00	63	0.05	47	0.05	32	0.18	64	0.09
Rangell 2001		62	0.57	21	0.01	51	0.04	63	0.04	51	0.06	76	0.05
Richter 1976		57	0.58	91	0.00	78	0.03	75	0.03	50	0.04	88	0.03
Rosen 1989		43	0.67	12	0.01	41	0.06	42	0.12	11	0.50	39	0.24
Rosenthal 1930		47	0.64	49	0.00	56	0.04	60	0.04	16	0.44	53	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		59	0.58	61	0.00	58	0.06	46	0.06	8	0.50	47	0.17
Rosenthal 1931b		69	0.53	40	0.00	60	0.04	62	0.04	11	0.42	55	0.13
Rosenthal 1931c		46	0.65	26	0.00	38	0.05	38	0.18	7	0.58	28	0.32
Rosenthal 1931d		68	0.53	53	0.00	61	0.04	58	0.04	12	0.38	57	0.12
Rossi 2007		64	0.55	59	0.00	64	0.04	56	0.04	5	0.35	56	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.20	78	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	54	0.05	85	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		72	0.48	67	0.00	65	0.03	81	0.03	52	0.06	81	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		70	0.53	22	0.01	76	0.03	77	0.03	30	0.24	69	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		24	0.71	7	0.02	16	0.05	9	0.34	7	0.47	9	0.40
Shebanova 2002		55	0.59	84	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	54	0.06	75	0.05
Smith 1975		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Sokolov 2002		8	0.74	9	0.02	27	0.06	18	0.27	8	0.46	16	0.35
Sztompka 1959		15	0.73	24	0.01	25	0.05	6	0.38	2	0.54	6	0.45
Tomsic 1995		13	0.73	25	0.01	22	0.05	28	0.24	16	0.38	29	0.30
Uninsky 1932		52	0.61	13	0.01	46	0.05	48	0.05	27	0.33	52	0.13
Uninsky 1971		42	0.67	19	0.01	29	0.05	35	0.19	13	0.45	31	0.29
Wasowski 1980		73	0.48	71	0.00	84	0.03	70	0.03	62	0.04	84	0.03
Zak 1937		65	0.55	76	0.00	75	0.02	86	0.02	47	0.06	86	0.03
Zak 1951		61	0.58	79	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	61	0.05	79	0.04
Average		1	0.86	1	0.50	1	0.50	1	0.70	1	0.61	1	0.65
Random 1		90	-0.10	58	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	77	0.03	91	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.16	87	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	76	0.02	90	0.02
Random 3		89	0.05	88	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	32	0.16	74	0.06

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).