Wasowski 1980

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		24	0.58	70	0.00	40	0.04	37	0.12	82	0.03	54	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		49	0.51	29	0.01	25	0.06	27	0.22	41	0.12	24	0.16
Ashkenazy 1981		38	0.52	25	0.01	19	0.05	21	0.24	35	0.17	16	0.20
Bacha 2000		67	0.43	27	0.01	52	0.04	59	0.04	32	0.21	40	0.09
Badura 1965		36	0.53	33	0.01	23	0.06	23	0.24	41	0.15	17	0.19
Barbosa 1983		60	0.47	16	0.02	37	0.05	36	0.12	40	0.23	23	0.17
Biret 1990		14	0.61	23	0.01	15	0.09	6	0.38	30	0.19	8	0.27
Blet 2003		29	0.55	13	0.02	20	0.05	35	0.12	36	0.16	27	0.14
Block 1995		63	0.45	90	0.00	43	0.04	44	0.08	81	0.03	57	0.05
Blumental 1952		76	0.36	65	0.00	59	0.03	73	0.03	62	0.04	78	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		20	0.59	61	0.00	31	0.06	29	0.21	65	0.03	45	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		32	0.53	36	0.00	41	0.04	42	0.10	71	0.04	51	0.06
Bunin 1987		54	0.49	38	0.00	72	0.05	50	0.05	59	0.04	64	0.04
Bunin 1987b		53	0.49	50	0.00	71	0.04	64	0.04	58	0.04	62	0.04
Chiu 1999		68	0.43	7	0.04	16	0.07	28	0.22	27	0.25	11	0.23
Cohen 1997		81	0.27	19	0.01	53	0.04	55	0.04	37	0.15	46	0.08
Cortot 1951		13	0.62	3	0.09	3	0.10	11	0.34	30	0.27	6	0.30
Csalog 1996		28	0.56	51	0.00	26	0.08	19	0.27	16	0.44	4	0.34
Czerny 1949		27	0.56	66	0.00	29	0.05	24	0.24	53	0.06	33	0.12
Czerny 1990		2	0.67	6	0.04	5	0.07	5	0.39	45	0.09	18	0.19
Duchoud 2007		15	0.61	35	0.01	21	0.05	16	0.31	32	0.25	7	0.28
Ezaki 2006		44	0.51	67	0.00	70	0.04	71	0.04	65	0.04	58	0.04
Falvay 1989		23	0.58	26	0.01	32	0.07	25	0.22	59	0.04	41	0.09
Farrell 1958		25	0.58	57	0.00	42	0.04	41	0.10	52	0.04	53	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		50	0.51	45	0.00	69	0.03	77	0.03	42	0.10	56	0.05
Fliere 1977		17	0.60	56	0.00	28	0.06	26	0.22	57	0.05	37	0.10
Fou 1978		72	0.40	58	0.00	78	0.04	66	0.04	56	0.05	61	0.04
Francois 1956		43	0.51	69	0.00	60	0.03	74	0.03	56	0.05	68	0.04
Friedman 1923		89	-0.01	71	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	51	0.06	84	0.03
Friedman 1923b		88	0.00	79	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	54	0.05	80	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.16	40	0.00	82	0.05	51	0.05	74	0.04	63	0.04
Garcia 2007		80	0.28	62	0.00	77	0.04	61	0.04	44	0.11	50	0.07
Garcia 2007b		86	0.13	74	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	68	0.03	83	0.03
Gierzod 1998		41	0.52	63	0.00	61	0.04	67	0.04	76	0.03	75	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		33	0.53	72	0.00	65	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.02	89	0.02
Groot 1988		19	0.59	31	0.01	39	0.04	33	0.14	52	0.05	47	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		75	0.36	28	0.01	51	0.04	57	0.04	68	0.03	82	0.03
Hatto 1993		77	0.35	86	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	29	0.21	34	0.12
Hatto 1997		69	0.40	55	0.00	46	0.04	65	0.04	27	0.23	39	0.10
Horowitz 1949		5	0.65	5	0.05	8	0.07	4	0.41	24	0.29	3	0.34
Indjic 1988		74	0.37	42	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.11	27	0.26	22	0.17
Kapell 1951		12	0.63	46	0.00	24	0.07	20	0.25	39	0.19	13	0.22
Kissin 1993		59	0.48	80	0.00	74	0.04	70	0.04	72	0.03	73	0.03
Kushner 1989		4	0.65	60	0.00	13	0.10	10	0.35	50	0.05	29	0.13
Luisada 1991		31	0.54	9	0.03	34	0.05	32	0.14	34	0.22	19	0.18
Lushtak 2004		46	0.51	4	0.05	4	0.08	15	0.32	31	0.19	10	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		22	0.58	34	0.01	56	0.04	54	0.04	71	0.03	72	0.03
Magaloff 1978		35	0.53	52	0.00	63	0.04	60	0.04	79	0.03	69	0.03
Magin 1975		52	0.49	22	0.01	48	0.04	52	0.04	66	0.03	71	0.03
Michalowski 1933		73	0.39	53	0.00	44	0.04	43	0.09	41	0.14	36	0.11
Milkina 1970		16	0.60	44	0.00	27	0.06	22	0.24	47	0.06	32	0.12
Mohovich 1999		37	0.52	85	0.00	50	0.05	49	0.05	32	0.16	44	0.09
Moravec 1969		6	0.64	11	0.02	7	0.09	14	0.32	37	0.13	15	0.20
Morozova 2008		11	0.63	2	0.10	2	0.10	8	0.35	47	0.06	28	0.14
Neighaus 1950		58	0.48	30	0.01	58	0.04	58	0.04	68	0.03	81	0.03
Niedzielski 1931		21	0.58	10	0.03	11	0.07	12	0.34	3	0.53	1	0.42
Ohlsson 1999		9	0.63	18	0.01	17	0.07	9	0.35	32	0.18	9	0.25
Osinska 1989		3	0.67	8	0.04	6	0.09	13	0.32	64	0.04	35	0.11
Pachmann 1927		78	0.32	41	0.00	79	0.05	48	0.05	38	0.15	42	0.09
Paderewski 1930		48	0.51	64	0.00	68	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.02	85	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		55	0.48	54	0.00	49	0.04	53	0.04	49	0.05	59	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		64	0.44	48	0.00	76	0.04	68	0.04	56	0.04	60	0.04
Poblocka 1999		7	0.63	15	0.02	14	0.08	3	0.41	31	0.24	5	0.31
Rabcewiczowa 1932		34	0.53	43	0.00	55	0.04	72	0.04	44	0.10	52	0.06
Rachmaninoff 1923		26	0.57	49	0.00	9	0.07	17	0.31	41	0.10	20	0.18
Rangell 2001		62	0.46	59	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	52	0.05	65	0.04
Richter 1976		10	0.63	12	0.02	10	0.09	2	0.43	12	0.39	2	0.41
Rosen 1989		65	0.44	81	0.00	80	0.04	56	0.04	86	0.02	77	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		66	0.43	87	0.00	62	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.03	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.24	82	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.20	88	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	89	0.01	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		70	0.40	76	0.00	81	0.05	47	0.05	76	0.03	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.27	89	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	72	0.03	90	0.02
Rossi 2007		79	0.29	17	0.02	30	0.05	34	0.13	38	0.11	31	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.40	14	0.02	33	0.06	38	0.12	25	0.36	14	0.21
Rubinstein 1952		51	0.50	73	0.00	66	0.03	79	0.03	62	0.05	67	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		40	0.52	68	0.00	67	0.03	85	0.03	37	0.17	48	0.07
Schilhawsky 1960		18	0.60	32	0.01	12	0.07	7	0.37	40	0.14	12	0.23
Shebanova 2002		30	0.54	20	0.01	45	0.04	45	0.08	44	0.11	43	0.09
Smith 1975		57	0.48	83	0.00	64	0.04	62	0.04	70	0.03	70	0.03
Sokolov 2002		8	0.63	39	0.00	22	0.07	18	0.28	46	0.07	26	0.14
Sztompka 1959		42	0.52	21	0.01	57	0.04	63	0.04	49	0.06	55	0.05
Tomsic 1995		39	0.52	24	0.01	18	0.06	30	0.18	33	0.18	21	0.18
Uninsky 1932		56	0.48	37	0.00	54	0.04	69	0.04	45	0.11	49	0.07
Uninsky 1971		61	0.46	77	0.00	73	0.03	82	0.03	66	0.04	74	0.03
Wasowski 1980		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Zak 1937		45	0.51	84	0.00	36	0.05	40	0.11	45	0.10	38	0.10
Zak 1951		47	0.51	78	0.00	35	0.05	31	0.14	41	0.16	25	0.15
Average		1	0.69	1	0.14	1	0.14	1	0.45	49	0.04	30	0.13
Random 1		91	-0.13	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	73	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.06	75	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	57	0.03	87	0.02
Random 3		87	0.07	47	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	67	0.04	79	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).