Zak 1951

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		19	0.66	31	0.00	13	0.10	20	0.36	27	0.26	26	0.31
Anderszewski 2003		78	0.34	23	0.00	66	0.04	69	0.04	45	0.07	64	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		54	0.53	65	0.00	17	0.06	38	0.19	32	0.21	38	0.20
Bacha 2000		55	0.53	24	0.00	49	0.05	53	0.05	11	0.47	43	0.15
Badura 1965		59	0.51	66	0.00	50	0.05	60	0.05	45	0.09	60	0.07
Barbosa 1983		21	0.65	67	0.00	32	0.07	24	0.33	18	0.39	20	0.36
Biret 1990		43	0.57	4	0.00	39	0.06	43	0.15	23	0.26	39	0.20
Blet 2003		30	0.62	38	0.00	41	0.07	40	0.17	47	0.06	50	0.10
Block 1995		70	0.44	68	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	50	0.04	83	0.03
Blumental 1952		76	0.36	69	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	42	0.10	61	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		45	0.56	10	0.00	52	0.05	51	0.05	30	0.21	51	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		33	0.60	39	0.00	42	0.08	44	0.14	21	0.35	32	0.22
Bunin 1987		26	0.63	40	0.00	35	0.07	31	0.25	40	0.15	41	0.19
Bunin 1987b		28	0.63	70	0.00	36	0.08	32	0.25	40	0.15	40	0.19
Chiu 1999		18	0.67	47	0.00	18	0.06	14	0.42	9	0.52	9	0.47
Cohen 1997		82	0.23	41	0.00	82	0.03	87	0.03	51	0.05	76	0.04
Cortot 1951		69	0.45	48	0.00	77	0.04	66	0.04	69	0.03	86	0.03
Csalog 1996		50	0.54	32	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	8	0.52	34	0.22
Czerny 1949		38	0.58	49	0.00	40	0.07	35	0.21	44	0.09	46	0.14
Czerny 1990		24	0.63	42	0.00	27	0.06	21	0.34	42	0.11	42	0.19
Duchoud 2007		53	0.53	43	0.00	56	0.06	46	0.06	48	0.05	65	0.05
Ezaki 2006		15	0.68	25	0.00	24	0.07	15	0.41	31	0.18	31	0.27
Falvay 1989		2	0.81	6	0.00	2	0.22	2	0.62	2	0.63	2	0.62
Farrell 1958		52	0.54	33	0.00	62	0.05	59	0.05	23	0.23	47	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		73	0.41	5	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.03
Fliere 1977		9	0.71	50	0.00	10	0.13	11	0.47	16	0.35	14	0.41
Fou 1978		10	0.71	13	0.00	11	0.10	5	0.51	14	0.45	7	0.48
Francois 1956		12	0.70	34	0.00	9	0.12	13	0.44	13	0.37	18	0.40
Friedman 1923		88	-0.01	71	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	65	0.05	87	0.03
Friedman 1923b		87	0.00	72	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	76	0.04	85	0.03
Friedman 1930		84	0.18	21	0.00	84	0.03	83	0.03	66	0.04	80	0.03
Garcia 2007		80	0.31	26	0.00	80	0.03	74	0.03	23	0.29	53	0.09
Garcia 2007b		86	0.10	73	0.00	86	0.03	75	0.03	36	0.11	62	0.06
Gierzod 1998		36	0.60	44	0.00	14	0.06	34	0.22	26	0.21	36	0.21
Gornostaeva 1994		46	0.55	74	0.00	60	0.06	48	0.06	54	0.04	67	0.05
Groot 1988		8	0.74	51	0.00	7	0.17	9	0.48	12	0.46	11	0.47
Harasiewicz 1955		34	0.60	8	0.00	19	0.06	17	0.40	23	0.32	21	0.36
Hatto 1993		81	0.30	27	0.00	54	0.04	65	0.04	28	0.21	54	0.09
Hatto 1997		75	0.36	75	0.00	55	0.05	54	0.05	38	0.12	57	0.08
Horowitz 1949		5	0.75	52	0.00	3	0.26	8	0.50	2	0.56	4	0.53
Indjic 1988		79	0.33	53	0.00	53	0.04	63	0.04	28	0.25	49	0.10
Kapell 1951		48	0.54	11	0.00	68	0.04	67	0.04	52	0.05	73	0.04
Kissin 1993		13	0.70	76	0.00	12	0.09	12	0.46	8	0.52	6	0.49
Kushner 1989		37	0.59	9	0.00	47	0.05	49	0.05	47	0.06	63	0.05
Luisada 1991		51	0.54	18	0.00	16	0.06	30	0.26	20	0.33	28	0.29
Lushtak 2004		16	0.67	35	0.00	21	0.07	10	0.48	22	0.35	15	0.41
Malcuzynski 1961		14	0.68	28	0.00	22	0.06	19	0.39	22	0.30	23	0.34
Magaloff 1978		31	0.62	54	0.00	29	0.07	27	0.31	28	0.29	27	0.30
Magin 1975		71	0.43	77	0.00	46	0.05	55	0.05	43	0.11	59	0.07
Michalowski 1933		85	0.15	78	0.00	83	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.04	79	0.03
Milkina 1970		20	0.65	55	0.00	20	0.07	16	0.41	11	0.44	12	0.42
Mohovich 1999		3	0.77	36	0.00	5	0.15	6	0.50	8	0.47	8	0.48
Moravec 1969		22	0.64	29	0.00	15	0.06	28	0.28	6	0.51	19	0.38
Morozova 2008		41	0.57	45	0.00	26	0.06	37	0.19	18	0.21	37	0.20
Neighaus 1950		7	0.74	19	0.00	6	0.18	4	0.61	4	0.57	3	0.59
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.48	37	0.00	59	0.05	57	0.05	6	0.45	45	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		40	0.57	56	0.00	37	0.07	42	0.16	20	0.29	33	0.22
Osinska 1989		49	0.54	46	0.00	51	0.05	50	0.05	66	0.04	69	0.04
Pachmann 1927		27	0.63	14	0.00	30	0.07	25	0.32	10	0.51	17	0.40
Paderewski 1930		74	0.38	79	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	82	0.02	88	0.02
Perlemuter 1992		11	0.70	57	0.00	23	0.07	18	0.40	16	0.40	16	0.40
Pierdomenico 2008		35	0.60	80	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.20	10	0.39	29	0.28
Poblocka 1999		47	0.54	15	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	66	0.03	70	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		72	0.43	12	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.03	78	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		32	0.61	58	0.00	25	0.06	23	0.33	14	0.36	22	0.34
Rangell 2001		58	0.52	2	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	35	0.18	58	0.08
Richter 1976		42	0.57	59	0.00	43	0.06	39	0.18	22	0.24	35	0.21
Rosen 1989		56	0.52	7	0.00	70	0.03	81	0.03	57	0.04	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		67	0.47	81	0.00	72	0.06	47	0.06	53	0.04	66	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		65	0.48	60	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	36	0.18	56	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.48	61	0.00	65	0.05	58	0.05	32	0.18	55	0.09
Rosenthal 1931c		57	0.52	82	0.00	61	0.05	62	0.05	51	0.05	68	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		61	0.51	83	0.00	64	0.04	73	0.04	28	0.24	52	0.10
Rossi 2007		83	0.20	62	0.00	85	0.03	78	0.03	63	0.03	77	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		77	0.34	84	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	28	0.32	48	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		17	0.67	85	0.00	31	0.07	22	0.34	11	0.51	13	0.42
Rubinstein 1966		29	0.62	86	0.00	34	0.08	29	0.27	25	0.39	24	0.32
Schilhawsky 1960		23	0.64	87	0.00	28	0.06	26	0.31	27	0.26	30	0.28
Shebanova 2002		25	0.63	30	0.00	33	0.07	33	0.23	19	0.43	25	0.31
Smith 1975		39	0.58	16	0.00	48	0.05	61	0.05	65	0.04	72	0.04
Sokolov 2002		44	0.56	88	0.00	57	0.05	52	0.05	53	0.04	71	0.04
Sztompka 1959		68	0.45	20	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	69	0.04	74	0.04
Tomsic 1995		6	0.75	63	0.00	8	0.17	7	0.50	10	0.51	5	0.50
Uninsky 1932		63	0.49	17	0.00	69	0.03	76	0.03	61	0.04	82	0.03
Uninsky 1971		60	0.51	89	0.00	71	0.04	70	0.04	59	0.04	75	0.04
Wasowski 1980		62	0.51	22	0.00	44	0.08	41	0.16	31	0.14	44	0.15
Zak 1937		1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.98	1	0.99	1	0.99	1	0.99
Zak 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Average		4	0.77	3	0.00	4	0.18	3	0.61	15	0.36	10	0.47
Random 1		89	-0.07	90	0.00	90	0.01	89	0.01	57	0.04	89	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.20	91	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		91	-0.21	64	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.02	91	0.01

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).