Michalowski 1933

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		66	0.19	64	0.00	63	0.06	59	0.06	55	0.05	65	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		68	0.18	56	0.00	71	0.04	77	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		4	0.50	4	0.10	2	0.29	2	0.73	20	0.66	3	0.69
Bacha 2000		70	0.17	8	0.03	49	0.07	53	0.07	44	0.12	53	0.09
Badura 1965		58	0.23	48	0.00	66	0.06	60	0.06	58	0.04	66	0.05
Barbosa 1983		57	0.25	37	0.00	54	0.06	57	0.06	55	0.05	63	0.05
Biret 1990		53	0.28	84	0.00	56	0.06	58	0.06	31	0.45	42	0.16
Blet 2003		12	0.46	49	0.00	17	0.11	17	0.47	15	0.59	9	0.53
Block 1995		13	0.46	17	0.01	18	0.13	16	0.50	27	0.44	19	0.47
Blumental 1952		54	0.26	32	0.00	59	0.07	51	0.07	38	0.17	51	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		36	0.36	57	0.00	45	0.07	49	0.07	40	0.16	52	0.11
Brailowsky 1960		75	0.14	24	0.00	67	0.06	68	0.06	72	0.04	61	0.05
Bunin 1987		42	0.34	33	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.20	35	0.28	38	0.24
Bunin 1987b		41	0.34	35	0.00	43	0.08	42	0.20	35	0.27	40	0.23
Chiu 1999		11	0.46	1	0.33	1	0.33	1	0.75	11	0.67	2	0.71
Cohen 1997		71	0.17	65	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03
Cortot 1951		77	0.14	85	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	82	0.02	88	0.02
Csalog 1996		2	0.50	6	0.04	4	0.20	3	0.72	2	0.77	1	0.74
Czerny 1949		85	0.00	73	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	74	0.04	77	0.03
Czerny 1990		55	0.26	60	0.00	55	0.06	67	0.06	52	0.07	58	0.06
Duchoud 2007		34	0.37	55	0.00	21	0.09	20	0.47	21	0.46	20	0.46
Ezaki 2006		84	0.02	79	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	89	0.02	86	0.02
Falvay 1989		64	0.21	21	0.00	36	0.09	43	0.18	42	0.13	43	0.15
Farrell 1958		78	0.12	74	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	79	0.03	75	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		88	-0.01	66	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	73	0.04	76	0.03
Fliere 1977		5	0.50	13	0.01	14	0.08	13	0.53	38	0.43	17	0.48
Fou 1978		59	0.23	86	0.00	61	0.07	55	0.07	85	0.03	62	0.05
Francois 1956		60	0.23	36	0.00	68	0.05	69	0.05	46	0.07	60	0.06
Friedman 1923		9	0.46	23	0.00	9	0.14	15	0.50	30	0.49	16	0.49
Friedman 1923b		6	0.48	2	0.12	6	0.15	14	0.51	29	0.51	12	0.51
Friedman 1930		26	0.42	31	0.00	27	0.10	21	0.46	32	0.44	24	0.45
Garcia 2007		40	0.34	61	0.00	46	0.08	48	0.08	43	0.16	50	0.11
Garcia 2007b		19	0.44	3	0.10	3	0.19	8	0.60	7	0.71	4	0.65
Gierzod 1998		81	0.07	67	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	74	0.03	78	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		63	0.22	34	0.00	64	0.06	63	0.06	57	0.05	68	0.05
Groot 1988		1	0.52	7	0.03	7	0.15	6	0.64	12	0.54	7	0.59
Harasiewicz 1955		20	0.44	5	0.04	16	0.10	11	0.54	24	0.38	25	0.45
Hatto 1993		10	0.46	62	0.00	12	0.16	5	0.66	22	0.50	8	0.57
Hatto 1997		50	0.29	40	0.00	47	0.08	47	0.08	35	0.21	45	0.13
Horowitz 1949		22	0.43	53	0.00	22	0.10	18	0.47	23	0.54	14	0.50
Indjic 1988		16	0.45	29	0.00	10	0.13	4	0.67	20	0.56	6	0.61
Kapell 1951		31	0.39	19	0.01	33	0.08	31	0.36	29	0.28	35	0.32
Kissin 1993		48	0.31	58	0.00	53	0.06	64	0.06	62	0.06	57	0.06
Kushner 1989		37	0.36	15	0.01	13	0.13	26	0.41	20	0.46	27	0.43
Luisada 1991		3	0.50	9	0.03	5	0.14	7	0.60	13	0.63	5	0.61
Lushtak 2004		80	0.08	80	0.00	83	0.04	78	0.04	83	0.02	80	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		47	0.32	75	0.00	50	0.07	56	0.07	48	0.07	55	0.07
Magaloff 1978		23	0.43	25	0.00	23	0.07	29	0.39	29	0.38	32	0.38
Magin 1975		15	0.45	11	0.02	19	0.08	22	0.45	22	0.56	13	0.50
Michalowski 1933		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Milkina 1970		72	0.16	12	0.01	58	0.07	50	0.07	39	0.22	47	0.12
Mohovich 1999		65	0.19	41	0.00	69	0.07	52	0.07	73	0.03	67	0.05
Moravec 1969		43	0.34	50	0.00	41	0.09	40	0.22	31	0.25	39	0.23
Morozova 2008		52	0.29	38	0.00	37	0.09	38	0.28	45	0.07	44	0.14
Neighaus 1950		35	0.37	68	0.00	40	0.10	39	0.25	55	0.06	48	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		21	0.43	42	0.00	26	0.09	24	0.42	26	0.36	30	0.39
Ohlsson 1999		25	0.42	46	0.00	24	0.08	28	0.40	33	0.22	36	0.30
Osinska 1989		28	0.40	14	0.01	31	0.08	33	0.35	26	0.47	28	0.41
Pachmann 1927		18	0.45	22	0.00	20	0.09	23	0.43	27	0.48	22	0.45
Paderewski 1930		27	0.41	26	0.00	39	0.09	37	0.28	27	0.43	33	0.35
Perlemuter 1992		24	0.42	28	0.00	35	0.10	25	0.41	30	0.49	21	0.45
Pierdomenico 2008		45	0.32	76	0.00	51	0.07	54	0.07	51	0.06	56	0.06
Poblocka 1999		32	0.38	77	0.00	29	0.09	30	0.38	31	0.30	34	0.34
Rabcewiczowa 1932		74	0.15	81	0.00	80	0.04	76	0.04	72	0.03	74	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		44	0.33	78	0.00	44	0.08	44	0.16	33	0.28	41	0.21
Rangell 2001		76	0.14	47	0.00	77	0.05	71	0.05	79	0.03	72	0.04
Richter 1976		17	0.45	20	0.00	25	0.10	19	0.47	34	0.52	15	0.49
Rosen 1989		46	0.32	69	0.00	52	0.06	65	0.06	76	0.03	71	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		67	0.19	83	0.00	73	0.04	80	0.04	77	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		86	0.00	87	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	80	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.03	88	0.00	81	0.04	79	0.04	77	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		79	0.12	70	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	70	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		82	0.05	89	0.00	76	0.04	73	0.04	77	0.03	83	0.03
Rossi 2007		69	0.17	43	0.00	70	0.06	66	0.06	27	0.25	46	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		56	0.25	30	0.00	57	0.06	62	0.06	50	0.08	54	0.07
Rubinstein 1952		51	0.29	44	0.00	60	0.08	46	0.08	60	0.05	59	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		61	0.23	71	0.00	62	0.06	61	0.06	63	0.05	64	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		33	0.38	18	0.01	32	0.08	35	0.33	8	0.62	23	0.45
Shebanova 2002		8	0.47	16	0.01	8	0.17	10	0.58	33	0.46	11	0.52
Smith 1975		73	0.15	51	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03
Sokolov 2002		29	0.40	39	0.00	34	0.09	34	0.34	11	0.55	26	0.43
Sztompka 1959		30	0.39	72	0.00	28	0.09	27	0.40	42	0.15	37	0.24
Tomsic 1995		62	0.23	63	0.00	65	0.05	70	0.05	83	0.03	69	0.04
Uninsky 1932		14	0.45	10	0.03	11	0.14	9	0.59	28	0.39	18	0.48
Uninsky 1971		49	0.31	27	0.00	48	0.10	45	0.10	44	0.12	49	0.11
Wasowski 1980		7	0.48	54	0.00	15	0.11	12	0.53	26	0.52	10	0.52
Zak 1937		38	0.36	45	0.00	30	0.08	32	0.35	21	0.46	29	0.40
Zak 1951		39	0.35	52	0.00	38	0.09	36	0.31	19	0.49	31	0.39
Random 1		87	0.00	82	0.00	88	0.03	85	0.03	65	0.03	81	0.03
Random 2		90	-0.12	90	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01	89	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.07	59	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	71	0.02	90	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).