Blet 2003

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		32	0.39	21	0.01	37	0.08	33	0.39	33	0.34	34	0.36
Anderszewski 2003		68	0.20	55	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	74	0.04	70	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		17	0.46	10	0.01	25	0.08	19	0.56	38	0.30	31	0.41
Bacha 2000		80	0.11	80	0.00	67	0.04	71	0.04	74	0.03	73	0.03
Badura 1965		69	0.20	88	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.03	80	0.03
Barbosa 1983		21	0.42	43	0.00	18	0.09	10	0.65	6	0.67	3	0.66
Biret 1990		50	0.30	32	0.00	43	0.07	43	0.16	27	0.47	39	0.27
Blet 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Block 1995		41	0.36	26	0.00	40	0.09	39	0.28	44	0.10	43	0.17
Blumental 1952		64	0.21	39	0.00	65	0.05	65	0.05	72	0.04	72	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		47	0.32	61	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.15	48	0.07	48	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		77	0.14	68	0.00	77	0.03	72	0.03	74	0.04	75	0.03
Bunin 1987		36	0.38	5	0.04	15	0.08	26	0.49	11	0.56	19	0.52
Bunin 1987b		35	0.38	7	0.02	16	0.15	25	0.50	11	0.56	17	0.53
Chiu 1999		13	0.48	17	0.01	26	0.10	18	0.57	32	0.35	26	0.45
Cohen 1997		75	0.15	82	0.00	82	0.02	82	0.02	85	0.02	88	0.02
Cortot 1951		66	0.20	63	0.00	62	0.06	61	0.06	49	0.06	58	0.06
Csalog 1996		38	0.37	52	0.00	45	0.08	50	0.08	26	0.39	42	0.18
Czerny 1949		81	0.06	89	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	66	0.04	79	0.03
Czerny 1990		40	0.36	83	0.00	41	0.08	41	0.25	32	0.43	36	0.33
Duchoud 2007		42	0.36	44	0.00	29	0.10	35	0.38	30	0.35	35	0.36
Ezaki 2006		76	0.15	73	0.00	75	0.02	80	0.02	74	0.03	83	0.02
Falvay 1989		72	0.18	76	0.00	74	0.02	81	0.02	80	0.03	84	0.02
Farrell 1958		48	0.32	20	0.01	47	0.08	48	0.08	31	0.32	45	0.16
Ferenczy 1958		90	-0.03	84	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	81	0.03	86	0.02
Fliere 1977		2	0.54	34	0.00	9	0.14	3	0.71	28	0.53	8	0.61
Fou 1978		54	0.30	53	0.00	55	0.07	54	0.07	80	0.03	63	0.05
Francois 1956		57	0.26	64	0.00	56	0.06	57	0.06	38	0.30	47	0.13
Friedman 1923		11	0.48	11	0.01	13	0.13	9	0.65	22	0.54	12	0.59
Friedman 1923b		7	0.49	19	0.01	12	0.09	7	0.66	19	0.61	5	0.63
Friedman 1930		4	0.50	12	0.01	7	0.13	5	0.68	23	0.56	6	0.62
Garcia 2007		63	0.22	74	0.00	59	0.07	51	0.07	61	0.05	56	0.06
Garcia 2007b		24	0.41	13	0.01	14	0.09	24	0.53	11	0.68	9	0.60
Gierzod 1998		89	0.01	45	0.00	81	0.03	74	0.03	86	0.02	87	0.02
Gornostaeva 1994		79	0.12	16	0.01	73	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Groot 1988		12	0.48	8	0.02	11	0.10	6	0.68	20	0.45	16	0.55
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.48	9	0.02	21	0.13	11	0.64	20	0.43	21	0.52
Hatto 1993		8	0.48	2	0.16	2	0.17	23	0.54	21	0.51	20	0.52
Hatto 1997		27	0.41	23	0.00	23	0.10	16	0.57	16	0.45	23	0.51
Horowitz 1949		18	0.45	18	0.01	20	0.10	34	0.38	29	0.44	29	0.41
Indjic 1988		14	0.47	14	0.01	4	0.13	14	0.60	23	0.54	14	0.57
Kapell 1951		29	0.40	33	0.00	17	0.10	20	0.56	14	0.47	22	0.51
Kissin 1993		28	0.40	77	0.00	31	0.08	27	0.46	23	0.52	24	0.49
Kushner 1989		61	0.23	65	0.00	69	0.04	66	0.04	79	0.04	69	0.04
Luisada 1991		1	0.57	1	0.36	1	0.36	1	0.79	4	0.78	1	0.78
Lushtak 2004		70	0.19	46	0.00	63	0.06	56	0.06	49	0.06	57	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		53	0.30	42	0.00	57	0.06	59	0.06	49	0.07	53	0.06
Magaloff 1978		58	0.26	66	0.00	60	0.08	49	0.08	65	0.04	52	0.06
Magin 1975		15	0.46	22	0.00	10	0.15	22	0.54	19	0.61	13	0.57
Michalowski 1933		16	0.46	38	0.00	24	0.12	15	0.59	17	0.47	18	0.53
Milkina 1970		74	0.16	57	0.00	76	0.03	78	0.03	72	0.03	78	0.03
Mohovich 1999		67	0.20	58	0.00	64	0.05	64	0.05	61	0.05	67	0.05
Moravec 1969		52	0.30	56	0.00	50	0.09	45	0.09	55	0.04	51	0.06
Morozova 2008		39	0.36	31	0.00	46	0.09	46	0.09	77	0.04	55	0.06
Neighaus 1950		5	0.49	30	0.00	5	0.15	2	0.72	9	0.53	7	0.62
Niedzielski 1931		26	0.41	25	0.00	27	0.08	29	0.44	27	0.34	33	0.39
Ohlsson 1999		20	0.43	40	0.00	32	0.10	32	0.40	35	0.16	40	0.25
Osinska 1989		65	0.20	78	0.00	66	0.04	67	0.04	76	0.03	74	0.03
Pachmann 1927		44	0.33	54	0.00	48	0.06	60	0.06	45	0.09	49	0.07
Paderewski 1930		6	0.49	4	0.05	8	0.15	4	0.69	8	0.71	2	0.70
Perlemuter 1992		30	0.40	15	0.01	38	0.09	37	0.36	34	0.44	32	0.40
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.27	27	0.00	54	0.05	62	0.05	55	0.05	61	0.05
Poblocka 1999		37	0.38	24	0.00	36	0.13	28	0.45	18	0.43	27	0.44
Rabcewiczowa 1932		78	0.12	59	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	46	0.09	62	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		33	0.39	35	0.00	39	0.10	40	0.27	28	0.36	37	0.31
Rangell 2001		59	0.25	36	0.00	53	0.08	47	0.08	51	0.06	50	0.07
Richter 1976		31	0.40	41	0.00	33	0.11	38	0.33	43	0.30	38	0.31
Rosen 1989		49	0.31	69	0.00	51	0.07	55	0.07	71	0.03	65	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		62	0.23	70	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	71	0.04	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.04	85	0.00	84	0.02	83	0.02	73	0.03	85	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.04	90	0.00	85	0.01	88	0.01	78	0.02	90	0.01
Rosenthal 1931c		73	0.16	86	0.00	68	0.04	68	0.04	72	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		83	0.05	81	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	68	0.03	81	0.03
Rossi 2007		86	0.03	49	0.00	87	0.02	85	0.02	61	0.04	76	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.18	62	0.00	80	0.03	73	0.03	69	0.04	77	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		51	0.30	60	0.00	49	0.07	53	0.07	46	0.06	59	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		60	0.25	71	0.00	58	0.06	58	0.06	45	0.07	54	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		22	0.42	37	0.00	34	0.09	36	0.37	6	0.63	25	0.48
Shebanova 2002		10	0.48	6	0.03	6	0.15	8	0.65	31	0.50	15	0.57
Smith 1975		55	0.28	72	0.00	61	0.05	63	0.05	49	0.06	60	0.05
Sokolov 2002		45	0.33	48	0.00	52	0.07	52	0.07	28	0.35	44	0.16
Sztompka 1959		23	0.42	75	0.00	35	0.10	30	0.41	45	0.13	41	0.23
Tomsic 1995		43	0.34	67	0.00	30	0.09	31	0.40	13	0.44	28	0.42
Uninsky 1932		19	0.45	47	0.00	19	0.08	17	0.57	34	0.29	30	0.41
Uninsky 1971		46	0.32	50	0.00	42	0.09	42	0.24	46	0.07	46	0.13
Wasowski 1980		3	0.50	3	0.11	3	0.17	12	0.64	20	0.55	10	0.59
Zak 1937		25	0.41	28	0.00	22	0.10	13	0.63	8	0.68	4	0.65
Zak 1951		34	0.39	29	0.00	28	0.08	21	0.54	9	0.65	11	0.59
Random 1		82	0.06	51	0.00	88	0.01	87	0.01	33	0.21	66	0.05
Random 2		88	0.02	79	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	42	0.13	64	0.05
Random 3		87	0.02	87	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	26	0.27	68	0.05

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).