Niedzielski 1931

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		68	0.21	65	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	70	0.04	73	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		54	0.28	36	0.00	45	0.06	55	0.06	21	0.45	45	0.16
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.58	1	0.42	1	0.42	1	0.82	11	0.79	2	0.80
Bacha 2000		71	0.20	47	0.00	69	0.04	76	0.04	41	0.13	58	0.07
Badura 1965		66	0.22	24	0.00	59	0.05	68	0.05	36	0.25	54	0.11
Barbosa 1983		34	0.37	39	0.00	48	0.07	51	0.07	33	0.27	48	0.14
Biret 1990		82	0.06	54	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	70	0.04	84	0.03
Blet 2003		26	0.41	43	0.00	26	0.09	27	0.34	29	0.44	26	0.39
Block 1995		35	0.37	41	0.00	40	0.07	40	0.18	39	0.18	42	0.18
Blumental 1952		49	0.32	57	0.00	32	0.07	39	0.18	23	0.45	34	0.28
Boshniakovich 1969		31	0.37	60	0.00	33	0.06	35	0.23	37	0.25	38	0.24
Brailowsky 1960		72	0.19	29	0.00	75	0.07	50	0.07	57	0.06	62	0.06
Bunin 1987		38	0.36	42	0.00	36	0.05	32	0.25	32	0.33	30	0.29
Bunin 1987b		37	0.36	61	0.00	37	0.08	33	0.25	32	0.32	32	0.28
Chiu 1999		14	0.45	6	0.02	8	0.13	5	0.66	19	0.61	9	0.63
Cohen 1997		73	0.17	40	0.00	79	0.05	64	0.05	83	0.02	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		78	0.13	62	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	67	0.04	77	0.04
Csalog 1996		47	0.32	68	0.00	50	0.06	58	0.06	27	0.39	47	0.15
Czerny 1949		89	-0.01	48	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	61	0.05	80	0.03
Czerny 1990		20	0.43	20	0.00	5	0.15	9	0.63	16	0.73	6	0.68
Duchoud 2007		43	0.34	16	0.00	35	0.06	36	0.22	34	0.26	37	0.24
Ezaki 2006		85	0.04	86	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.02	85	0.02
Falvay 1989		64	0.23	63	0.00	63	0.05	66	0.05	54	0.05	65	0.05
Farrell 1958		61	0.26	76	0.00	66	0.05	61	0.05	52	0.06	67	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		88	-0.01	74	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.03	86	0.02
Fliere 1977		5	0.49	13	0.01	7	0.18	8	0.65	24	0.61	8	0.63
Fou 1978		33	0.37	72	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	42	0.15	52	0.13
Francois 1956		79	0.11	37	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	88	0.02
Friedman 1923		12	0.46	19	0.00	11	0.13	15	0.54	20	0.56	15	0.55
Friedman 1923b		11	0.46	44	0.00	13	0.20	16	0.53	21	0.58	14	0.55
Friedman 1930		30	0.39	85	0.00	23	0.10	20	0.46	30	0.52	20	0.49
Garcia 2007		42	0.35	26	0.00	20	0.15	25	0.39	21	0.44	23	0.41
Garcia 2007b		53	0.30	56	0.00	51	0.06	52	0.06	35	0.31	50	0.14
Gierzod 1998		60	0.26	52	0.00	54	0.07	47	0.07	30	0.37	46	0.16
Gornostaeva 1994		77	0.14	69	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.02	87	0.02
Groot 1988		19	0.43	27	0.00	27	0.10	24	0.39	42	0.15	39	0.24
Harasiewicz 1955		36	0.36	34	0.00	41	0.08	41	0.17	65	0.05	57	0.09
Hatto 1993		9	0.48	7	0.02	9	0.16	7	0.65	16	0.53	12	0.59
Hatto 1997		58	0.26	80	0.00	57	0.07	45	0.07	47	0.07	60	0.07
Horowitz 1949		6	0.49	23	0.00	15	0.17	10	0.62	6	0.74	5	0.68
Indjic 1988		7	0.48	9	0.01	10	0.23	6	0.65	13	0.63	7	0.64
Kapell 1951		17	0.44	21	0.00	19	0.12	19	0.48	13	0.47	22	0.47
Kissin 1993		15	0.45	75	0.00	17	0.16	14	0.56	17	0.63	11	0.59
Kushner 1989		29	0.40	18	0.00	21	0.09	21	0.46	19	0.49	21	0.47
Luisada 1991		25	0.42	25	0.00	18	0.10	17	0.49	25	0.51	18	0.50
Lushtak 2004		65	0.22	81	0.00	74	0.05	60	0.05	69	0.05	68	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		24	0.42	22	0.00	22	0.10	18	0.48	18	0.50	19	0.49
Magaloff 1978		22	0.43	10	0.01	38	0.06	37	0.21	37	0.28	36	0.24
Magin 1975		4	0.50	31	0.00	6	0.20	4	0.70	6	0.82	3	0.76
Michalowski 1933		21	0.43	66	0.00	28	0.09	26	0.36	24	0.42	25	0.39
Milkina 1970		74	0.17	77	0.00	67	0.03	81	0.03	59	0.05	71	0.04
Mohovich 1999		50	0.31	67	0.00	52	0.06	54	0.06	44	0.15	56	0.09
Moravec 1969		41	0.35	17	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.14	29	0.28	40	0.20
Morozova 2008		32	0.37	30	0.00	25	0.09	28	0.32	32	0.25	33	0.28
Neighaus 1950		48	0.32	51	0.00	53	0.07	46	0.07	61	0.05	63	0.06
Niedzielski 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ohlsson 1999		16	0.44	12	0.01	12	0.13	23	0.44	22	0.37	24	0.40
Osinska 1989		67	0.22	8	0.01	55	0.06	59	0.06	48	0.07	61	0.06
Pachmann 1927		13	0.45	5	0.02	16	0.19	13	0.57	16	0.64	10	0.60
Paderewski 1930		18	0.44	45	0.00	24	0.14	22	0.45	17	0.61	16	0.52
Perlemuter 1992		27	0.41	53	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.21	33	0.45	29	0.31
Pierdomenico 2008		52	0.30	55	0.00	61	0.04	74	0.04	48	0.06	66	0.05
Poblocka 1999		56	0.27	49	0.00	62	0.04	71	0.04	64	0.05	70	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		80	0.10	87	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03	78	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		28	0.40	32	0.00	34	0.06	31	0.25	24	0.46	27	0.34
Rangell 2001		55	0.28	78	0.00	60	0.05	62	0.05	70	0.04	76	0.04
Richter 1976		1	0.59	2	0.28	2	0.47	2	0.79	4	0.83	1	0.81
Rosen 1989		51	0.31	90	0.00	58	0.06	56	0.06	80	0.03	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		62	0.26	88	0.00	64	0.03	77	0.03	47	0.06	74	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.15	28	0.00	65	0.05	67	0.05	34	0.40	49	0.14
Rosenthal 1931b		75	0.16	46	0.00	70	0.04	73	0.04	38	0.34	53	0.12
Rosenthal 1931c		57	0.26	50	0.00	46	0.07	49	0.07	27	0.46	43	0.18
Rosenthal 1931d		81	0.09	11	0.01	76	0.05	65	0.05	51	0.05	69	0.05
Rossi 2007		84	0.04	64	0.00	77	0.04	75	0.04	40	0.12	59	0.07
Rubinstein 1939		46	0.33	70	0.00	49	0.07	48	0.07	26	0.26	51	0.13
Rubinstein 1952		39	0.36	38	0.00	30	0.07	30	0.26	24	0.42	28	0.33
Rubinstein 1966		45	0.34	33	0.00	29	0.07	29	0.27	35	0.15	41	0.20
Schilhawsky 1960		63	0.24	14	0.01	68	0.03	80	0.03	32	0.29	55	0.09
Shebanova 2002		3	0.55	4	0.04	3	0.29	3	0.73	15	0.67	4	0.70
Smith 1975		83	0.05	82	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.01	89	0.01
Sokolov 2002		59	0.26	71	0.00	56	0.06	53	0.06	54	0.04	64	0.05
Sztompka 1959		10	0.48	3	0.04	4	0.14	12	0.57	13	0.57	13	0.57
Tomsic 1995		69	0.21	89	0.00	73	0.05	63	0.05	79	0.03	72	0.04
Uninsky 1932		8	0.48	15	0.01	14	0.14	11	0.62	22	0.44	17	0.52
Uninsky 1971		70	0.21	73	0.00	72	0.04	70	0.04	77	0.03	79	0.03
Wasowski 1980		23	0.42	35	0.00	31	0.06	34	0.24	39	0.24	35	0.24
Zak 1937		40	0.35	58	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.17	22	0.46	31	0.28
Zak 1951		44	0.34	79	0.00	47	0.06	57	0.06	24	0.42	44	0.16
Random 1		90	-0.07	83	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		86	0.01	59	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	55	0.05	81	0.03
Random 3		87	-0.01	84	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	44	0.07	82	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).