Uninsky 1971

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		12	0.68	26	0.01	21	0.08	21	0.41	25	0.27	22	0.33
Anderszewski 2003		42	0.54	24	0.01	26	0.07	30	0.32	23	0.31	26	0.31
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.62	76	0.00	30	0.09	25	0.39	29	0.27	24	0.32
Bacha 2000		72	0.40	77	0.00	80	0.02	85	0.02	76	0.03	85	0.02
Badura 1965		32	0.60	16	0.01	29	0.07	28	0.36	13	0.42	18	0.39
Barbosa 1983		21	0.65	38	0.00	16	0.07	20	0.42	14	0.43	12	0.42
Biret 1990		26	0.62	31	0.00	36	0.06	31	0.29	39	0.15	34	0.21
Blet 2003		6	0.72	53	0.00	14	0.10	17	0.43	18	0.38	17	0.40
Block 1995		66	0.43	28	0.00	66	0.04	65	0.04	67	0.04	63	0.04
Blumental 1952		41	0.54	44	0.00	37	0.07	43	0.18	18	0.27	32	0.22
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.54	69	0.00	61	0.04	61	0.04	63	0.04	65	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		70	0.42	25	0.01	84	0.02	84	0.02	70	0.04	71	0.03
Bunin 1987		3	0.77	3	0.05	3	0.25	3	0.58	5	0.55	3	0.56
Bunin 1987b		2	0.77	8	0.02	2	0.18	2	0.58	5	0.55	2	0.56
Chiu 1999		69	0.42	70	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	68	0.04	55	0.04
Cohen 1997		86	0.18	45	0.00	79	0.02	81	0.02	69	0.03	89	0.02
Cortot 1951		17	0.66	9	0.02	18	0.11	15	0.44	12	0.45	10	0.44
Csalog 1996		76	0.37	21	0.01	55	0.05	51	0.05	53	0.06	53	0.05
Czerny 1949		10	0.69	42	0.00	22	0.09	16	0.43	17	0.40	15	0.41
Czerny 1990		7	0.72	54	0.00	20	0.10	11	0.46	26	0.25	21	0.34
Duchoud 2007		8	0.71	11	0.01	9	0.09	14	0.44	12	0.45	9	0.44
Ezaki 2006		11	0.69	23	0.01	23	0.07	18	0.42	50	0.06	38	0.16
Falvay 1989		54	0.49	55	0.00	70	0.05	54	0.05	84	0.03	57	0.04
Farrell 1958		48	0.52	59	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	68	0.04	58	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		24	0.63	12	0.01	11	0.07	27	0.36	9	0.48	13	0.42
Fliere 1977		34	0.59	71	0.00	56	0.05	53	0.05	83	0.03	54	0.04
Fou 1978		83	0.32	81	0.00	86	0.03	75	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Francois 1956		37	0.57	20	0.01	42	0.07	40	0.19	36	0.13	41	0.16
Friedman 1923		82	0.32	89	0.00	43	0.08	39	0.19	5	0.53	25	0.32
Friedman 1923b		77	0.34	91	0.00	38	0.06	37	0.21	4	0.53	23	0.33
Friedman 1930		80	0.34	51	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.17	33	0.23	35	0.20
Garcia 2007		62	0.45	72	0.00	53	0.05	49	0.05	17	0.35	43	0.13
Garcia 2007b		87	0.13	88	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03
Gierzod 1998		31	0.60	46	0.00	39	0.06	32	0.28	44	0.11	37	0.18
Gornostaeva 1994		39	0.56	34	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	68	0.03	66	0.04
Groot 1988		33	0.60	39	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.15	57	0.04	49	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		40	0.55	2	0.06	5	0.18	4	0.53	20	0.33	14	0.42
Hatto 1993		75	0.38	49	0.00	35	0.08	42	0.18	21	0.32	31	0.24
Hatto 1997		60	0.46	47	0.00	27	0.08	35	0.23	20	0.36	28	0.29
Horowitz 1949		63	0.44	73	0.00	67	0.03	70	0.03	66	0.04	76	0.03
Indjic 1988		73	0.40	78	0.00	34	0.08	41	0.18	24	0.32	30	0.24
Kapell 1951		13	0.68	6	0.03	6	0.10	10	0.46	13	0.47	6	0.46
Kissin 1993		64	0.43	61	0.00	82	0.02	82	0.02	68	0.04	77	0.03
Kushner 1989		35	0.58	56	0.00	51	0.04	60	0.04	71	0.03	74	0.03
Luisada 1991		71	0.41	62	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03	69	0.03
Lushtak 2004		23	0.63	52	0.00	13	0.08	19	0.42	19	0.36	19	0.39
Malcuzynski 1961		20	0.66	13	0.01	25	0.09	24	0.40	37	0.14	29	0.24
Magaloff 1978		51	0.50	79	0.00	65	0.04	64	0.04	53	0.04	56	0.04
Magin 1975		61	0.45	82	0.00	47	0.05	48	0.05	52	0.05	52	0.05
Michalowski 1933		45	0.53	50	0.00	10	0.07	7	0.48	9	0.45	7	0.46
Milkina 1970		59	0.46	40	0.00	83	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03	75	0.03
Mohovich 1999		16	0.67	43	0.00	28	0.08	29	0.35	56	0.04	45	0.12
Moravec 1969		53	0.50	83	0.00	69	0.03	72	0.03	75	0.03	68	0.03
Morozova 2008		52	0.50	64	0.00	50	0.04	63	0.04	73	0.03	79	0.03
Neighaus 1950		29	0.60	30	0.00	31	0.11	26	0.37	54	0.05	42	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		67	0.42	65	0.00	78	0.03	77	0.03	70	0.03	73	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.60	14	0.01	33	0.07	33	0.27	43	0.13	36	0.19
Osinska 1989		38	0.56	7	0.02	49	0.05	57	0.05	44	0.09	50	0.07
Pachmann 1927		74	0.38	48	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	49	0.05	61	0.04
Paderewski 1930		27	0.61	41	0.00	40	0.06	38	0.21	27	0.22	33	0.21
Perlemuter 1992		14	0.68	27	0.00	15	0.08	9	0.47	20	0.34	16	0.40
Pierdomenico 2008		68	0.42	57	0.00	81	0.02	86	0.02	82	0.03	86	0.02
Poblocka 1999		22	0.65	4	0.04	17	0.07	23	0.40	24	0.32	20	0.36
Rabcewiczowa 1932		19	0.66	33	0.00	24	0.07	22	0.41	11	0.46	11	0.43
Rachmaninoff 1923		43	0.54	80	0.00	32	0.08	34	0.27	44	0.09	39	0.16
Rangell 2001		57	0.46	18	0.01	76	0.03	76	0.03	66	0.03	81	0.03
Richter 1976		46	0.53	60	0.00	48	0.05	58	0.05	41	0.08	51	0.06
Rosen 1989		47	0.52	22	0.01	58	0.05	47	0.05	63	0.03	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		36	0.58	19	0.01	46	0.08	46	0.08	35	0.21	44	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.34	90	0.00	72	0.03	71	0.03	70	0.03	78	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.31	37	0.00	73	0.03	69	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		55	0.48	84	0.00	60	0.05	55	0.05	57	0.04	67	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.34	66	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	75	0.03	82	0.03
Rossi 2007		85	0.29	85	0.00	71	0.03	73	0.03	72	0.03	72	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.09	35	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.02	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1952		79	0.34	29	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.02
Rubinstein 1966		65	0.43	86	0.00	85	0.02	83	0.02	81	0.02	88	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		18	0.66	32	0.00	12	0.08	12	0.45	8	0.47	8	0.46
Shebanova 2002		58	0.46	17	0.01	54	0.05	56	0.05	75	0.03	62	0.04
Smith 1975		15	0.67	15	0.01	19	0.09	13	0.45	35	0.19	27	0.29
Sokolov 2002		4	0.76	5	0.03	4	0.23	5	0.53	3	0.53	4	0.53
Sztompka 1959		9	0.71	10	0.01	7	0.08	8	0.47	8	0.50	5	0.48
Tomsic 1995		28	0.61	74	0.00	41	0.06	36	0.21	47	0.05	46	0.10
Uninsky 1932		1	0.87	1	0.50	1	0.49	1	0.72	1	0.74	1	0.73
Uninsky 1971		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Wasowski 1980		56	0.46	75	0.00	52	0.04	66	0.04	82	0.03	70	0.03
Zak 1937		50	0.51	58	0.00	64	0.05	50	0.05	80	0.03	59	0.04
Zak 1951		49	0.51	87	0.00	57	0.04	59	0.04	70	0.04	60	0.04
Average		5	0.75	67	0.00	8	0.09	6	0.49	47	0.05	40	0.16
Random 1		89	0.02	36	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	20	0.32	48	0.08
Random 2		91	0.00	63	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	21	0.29	47	0.08
Random 3		90	0.02	68	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	47	0.05	80	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).