Csalog 1996

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		61	0.22	57	0.00	65	0.07	48	0.07	81	0.03	59	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		76	0.11	85	0.00	68	0.04	78	0.04	83	0.03	77	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		39	0.30	73	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.14	49	0.08	40	0.11
Bacha 2000		86	-0.04	77	0.00	87	0.01	87	0.01	87	0.02	90	0.01
Badura 1965		64	0.22	74	0.00	58	0.05	64	0.05	56	0.04	70	0.04
Barbosa 1983		68	0.19	75	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	80	0.03	76	0.03
Biret 1990		13	0.41	20	0.00	6	0.15	15	0.52	17	0.59	10	0.55
Blet 2003		21	0.37	60	0.00	29	0.07	26	0.39	50	0.08	29	0.18
Block 1995		28	0.33	16	0.01	39	0.07	39	0.19	59	0.05	43	0.10
Blumental 1952		80	0.05	78	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.02	85	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		46	0.25	44	0.00	55	0.06	49	0.06	53	0.06	53	0.06
Brailowsky 1960		70	0.18	55	0.00	74	0.06	51	0.06	66	0.05	55	0.05
Bunin 1987		44	0.28	68	0.00	33	0.08	30	0.32	41	0.15	24	0.22
Bunin 1987b		41	0.28	69	0.00	32	0.07	29	0.32	40	0.15	22	0.22
Chiu 1999		2	0.50	4	0.07	4	0.33	3	0.76	20	0.60	4	0.68
Cohen 1997		48	0.25	32	0.00	72	0.05	62	0.05	64	0.03	72	0.04
Cortot 1951		59	0.22	30	0.00	75	0.07	46	0.07	65	0.04	62	0.05
Csalog 1996		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1949		75	0.14	86	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	49	0.07	58	0.05
Czerny 1990		49	0.25	39	0.00	48	0.06	54	0.06	48	0.08	48	0.07
Duchoud 2007		4	0.50	1	0.29	1	0.29	1	0.79	3	0.75	1	0.77
Ezaki 2006		81	0.02	79	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01
Falvay 1989		55	0.24	54	0.00	24	0.08	35	0.21	48	0.06	37	0.11
Farrell 1958		15	0.41	27	0.00	13	0.12	9	0.59	6	0.58	6	0.58
Ferenczy 1958		84	-0.03	80	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	84	0.03	82	0.02
Fliere 1977		6	0.47	14	0.01	11	0.13	8	0.61	43	0.30	16	0.43
Fou 1978		53	0.24	45	0.00	56	0.06	52	0.06	82	0.03	64	0.04
Francois 1956		72	0.16	81	0.00	76	0.04	76	0.04	83	0.02	80	0.03
Friedman 1923		8	0.45	23	0.00	8	0.10	6	0.64	28	0.50	8	0.57
Friedman 1923b		9	0.45	12	0.01	9	0.12	7	0.64	25	0.53	7	0.58
Friedman 1930		23	0.37	40	0.00	34	0.08	31	0.32	45	0.11	28	0.19
Garcia 2007		66	0.20	52	0.00	57	0.06	50	0.06	68	0.05	60	0.05
Garcia 2007b		57	0.23	18	0.01	47	0.06	53	0.06	50	0.07	54	0.06
Gierzod 1998		85	-0.03	76	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.02
Gornostaeva 1994		29	0.33	24	0.00	40	0.06	44	0.14	46	0.08	41	0.11
Groot 1988		24	0.36	49	0.00	37	0.09	32	0.31	65	0.06	36	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		16	0.40	34	0.00	36	0.09	28	0.34	45	0.07	34	0.15
Hatto 1993		51	0.24	72	0.00	62	0.06	58	0.06	67	0.05	61	0.05
Hatto 1997		65	0.21	61	0.00	64	0.05	63	0.05	81	0.03	69	0.04
Horowitz 1949		38	0.30	15	0.01	43	0.07	42	0.15	68	0.05	45	0.09
Indjic 1988		60	0.22	53	0.00	61	0.04	75	0.04	52	0.08	51	0.06
Kapell 1951		63	0.22	87	0.00	52	0.05	59	0.05	52	0.07	50	0.06
Kissin 1993		42	0.28	8	0.02	18	0.10	21	0.44	38	0.33	19	0.38
Kushner 1989		45	0.27	13	0.01	27	0.07	37	0.20	43	0.14	30	0.17
Luisada 1991		17	0.39	19	0.01	19	0.08	17	0.50	39	0.27	20	0.37
Lushtak 2004		56	0.23	10	0.02	53	0.05	67	0.05	44	0.09	47	0.07
Malcuzynski 1961		62	0.22	56	0.00	54	0.05	66	0.05	56	0.05	57	0.05
Magaloff 1978		14	0.41	22	0.00	15	0.12	13	0.56	26	0.43	13	0.49
Magin 1975		37	0.31	37	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	46	0.10	46	0.08
Michalowski 1933		3	0.50	3	0.11	3	0.27	2	0.77	3	0.72	2	0.74
Milkina 1970		77	0.10	64	0.00	59	0.05	65	0.05	68	0.03	65	0.04
Mohovich 1999		74	0.15	35	0.00	73	0.05	60	0.05	74	0.03	71	0.04
Moravec 1969		52	0.24	82	0.00	49	0.08	45	0.08	67	0.04	49	0.06
Morozova 2008		31	0.33	41	0.00	35	0.08	33	0.26	68	0.04	42	0.10
Neighaus 1950		20	0.38	58	0.00	26	0.08	20	0.44	63	0.05	33	0.15
Niedzielski 1931		34	0.32	65	0.00	31	0.07	27	0.39	58	0.06	32	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		12	0.41	36	0.00	17	0.10	19	0.45	40	0.11	23	0.22
Osinska 1989		5	0.50	6	0.03	5	0.32	5	0.65	10	0.68	5	0.66
Pachmann 1927		11	0.45	5	0.04	7	0.10	11	0.58	20	0.54	9	0.56
Paderewski 1930		47	0.25	28	0.00	30	0.07	36	0.21	43	0.21	25	0.21
Perlemuter 1992		36	0.31	38	0.00	38	0.07	38	0.20	43	0.13	31	0.16
Pierdomenico 2008		26	0.35	83	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.17	56	0.05	44	0.09
Poblocka 1999		19	0.38	11	0.01	20	0.08	18	0.47	23	0.39	17	0.43
Rabcewiczowa 1932		73	0.16	88	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.03	75	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		35	0.31	29	0.00	22	0.11	25	0.40	27	0.41	18	0.40
Rangell 2001		67	0.19	42	0.00	60	0.04	74	0.04	75	0.04	73	0.04
Richter 1976		7	0.45	46	0.00	10	0.10	12	0.57	37	0.43	12	0.50
Rosen 1989		10	0.45	9	0.02	12	0.12	10	0.58	34	0.35	15	0.45
Rosenthal 1930		79	0.07	66	0.00	79	0.04	77	0.04	84	0.03	78	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		89	-0.05	89	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.02	81	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		83	-0.03	90	0.00	82	0.02	82	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		78	0.08	43	0.00	67	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		88	-0.05	70	0.00	84	0.02	83	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02
Rossi 2007		30	0.33	59	0.00	45	0.06	56	0.06	3	0.69	27	0.20
Rubinstein 1939		33	0.32	21	0.00	23	0.09	24	0.40	19	0.32	21	0.36
Rubinstein 1952		50	0.25	62	0.00	50	0.06	55	0.06	54	0.05	63	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		43	0.28	7	0.02	28	0.08	34	0.26	56	0.05	39	0.11
Schilhawsky 1960		54	0.24	50	0.00	63	0.05	69	0.05	71	0.04	68	0.04
Shebanova 2002		18	0.39	25	0.00	14	0.11	14	0.53	50	0.08	26	0.21
Smith 1975		69	0.19	71	0.00	78	0.04	70	0.04	80	0.03	74	0.03
Sokolov 2002		40	0.29	48	0.00	51	0.06	57	0.06	56	0.04	56	0.05
Sztompka 1959		32	0.33	47	0.00	42	0.07	40	0.19	53	0.06	38	0.11
Tomsic 1995		71	0.17	51	0.00	69	0.05	68	0.05	76	0.03	66	0.04
Uninsky 1932		25	0.36	31	0.00	21	0.10	22	0.42	60	0.05	35	0.14
Uninsky 1971		58	0.23	84	0.00	71	0.05	61	0.05	79	0.03	67	0.04
Wasowski 1980		1	0.52	2	0.26	2	0.39	4	0.75	12	0.64	3	0.69
Zak 1937		22	0.37	17	0.01	16	0.11	16	0.51	13	0.55	11	0.53
Zak 1951		27	0.34	67	0.00	25	0.07	23	0.42	17	0.50	14	0.46
Random 1		82	0.01	63	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	42	0.12	52	0.06
Random 2		87	-0.05	33	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	72	0.03	83	0.02
Random 3		90	-0.07	26	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	45	0.05	86	0.02

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).