Schilhawsky 1960

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		51	0.20	82	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	75	0.03	76	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		27	0.29	19	0.01	26	0.08	34	0.28	32	0.24	20	0.26
Ashkenazy 1981		17	0.33	59	0.00	22	0.08	17	0.46	55	0.07	22	0.18
Bacha 2000		30	0.28	36	0.00	27	0.07	22	0.43	34	0.24	15	0.32
Badura 1965		49	0.21	14	0.01	41	0.08	39	0.18	44	0.11	32	0.14
Barbosa 1983		3	0.42	23	0.00	7	0.13	4	0.67	13	0.56	3	0.61
Biret 1990		31	0.27	47	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.25	38	0.31	19	0.28
Blet 2003		5	0.42	8	0.03	9	0.21	6	0.63	36	0.37	7	0.48
Block 1995		14	0.34	24	0.00	16	0.15	13	0.51	62	0.05	27	0.16
Blumental 1952		20	0.31	6	0.04	13	0.15	10	0.57	28	0.33	11	0.43
Boshniakovich 1969		8	0.40	3	0.10	4	0.23	3	0.70	26	0.44	6	0.55
Brailowsky 1960		35	0.26	16	0.01	37	0.07	36	0.27	56	0.06	34	0.13
Bunin 1987		29	0.28	20	0.00	29	0.13	25	0.39	36	0.23	17	0.30
Bunin 1987b		28	0.28	26	0.00	28	0.08	26	0.39	36	0.22	18	0.29
Chiu 1999		1	0.43	4	0.05	10	0.14	9	0.61	43	0.15	16	0.30
Cohen 1997		68	0.14	83	0.00	67	0.04	70	0.04	87	0.02	78	0.03
Cortot 1951		67	0.15	64	0.00	72	0.04	67	0.04	74	0.03	79	0.03
Csalog 1996		39	0.24	60	0.00	50	0.04	71	0.04	69	0.05	55	0.04
Czerny 1949		87	-0.02	87	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.01
Czerny 1990		66	0.15	30	0.00	63	0.05	59	0.05	77	0.03	60	0.04
Duchoud 2007		75	0.10	88	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	83	0.02	77	0.03
Ezaki 2006		72	0.11	51	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	83	0.02	81	0.02
Falvay 1989		80	0.08	45	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	89	0.02	82	0.02
Farrell 1958		86	0.05	73	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.02	84	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		76	0.09	37	0.00	73	0.04	65	0.04	44	0.15	44	0.08
Fliere 1977		15	0.33	53	0.00	31	0.09	29	0.34	62	0.05	33	0.13
Fou 1978		60	0.17	38	0.00	51	0.04	64	0.04	84	0.03	71	0.03
Francois 1956		59	0.18	50	0.00	70	0.04	76	0.04	75	0.03	80	0.03
Friedman 1923		13	0.37	32	0.00	12	0.18	16	0.48	36	0.37	12	0.42
Friedman 1923b		10	0.39	10	0.02	6	0.16	14	0.50	37	0.42	8	0.46
Friedman 1930		6	0.42	2	0.18	2	0.20	7	0.63	31	0.49	5	0.56
Garcia 2007		57	0.18	25	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.17	60	0.05	41	0.09
Garcia 2007b		26	0.29	34	0.00	30	0.10	30	0.30	45	0.09	28	0.16
Gierzod 1998		62	0.17	61	0.00	49	0.06	47	0.06	56	0.06	46	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		77	0.09	84	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02
Groot 1988		50	0.20	77	0.00	65	0.06	48	0.06	78	0.03	62	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		4	0.42	12	0.02	15	0.13	12	0.53	75	0.04	30	0.15
Hatto 1993		48	0.21	40	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	71	0.04	64	0.04
Hatto 1997		56	0.19	28	0.00	55	0.06	46	0.06	85	0.03	58	0.04
Horowitz 1949		9	0.39	5	0.05	5	0.19	5	0.65	26	0.48	4	0.56
Indjic 1988		46	0.23	54	0.00	42	0.08	40	0.17	64	0.06	39	0.10
Kapell 1951		25	0.29	67	0.00	24	0.07	24	0.42	53	0.06	24	0.16
Kissin 1993		52	0.20	55	0.00	53	0.05	62	0.05	69	0.05	48	0.05
Kushner 1989		38	0.25	43	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.14	69	0.04	45	0.07
Luisada 1991		23	0.30	48	0.00	34	0.09	33	0.28	64	0.05	35	0.12
Lushtak 2004		16	0.33	70	0.00	18	0.08	15	0.48	16	0.42	10	0.45
Malcuzynski 1961		22	0.30	29	0.00	21	0.07	20	0.44	53	0.06	25	0.16
Magaloff 1978		32	0.27	49	0.00	39	0.08	38	0.23	63	0.05	38	0.11
Magin 1975		53	0.20	56	0.00	60	0.05	61	0.05	73	0.04	53	0.04
Michalowski 1933		11	0.38	11	0.02	11	0.16	8	0.62	35	0.33	9	0.45
Milkina 1970		74	0.10	21	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.03	72	0.03
Mohovich 1999		47	0.22	42	0.00	17	0.08	42	0.15	63	0.05	42	0.09
Moravec 1969		65	0.15	41	0.00	59	0.05	52	0.05	87	0.02	67	0.03
Morozova 2008		40	0.24	78	0.00	62	0.05	63	0.05	83	0.03	57	0.04
Neighaus 1950		43	0.23	52	0.00	46	0.07	45	0.07	88	0.02	63	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		42	0.24	9	0.02	35	0.06	32	0.29	80	0.03	40	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		12	0.37	7	0.03	8	0.14	11	0.54	32	0.22	14	0.34
Osinska 1989		45	0.23	33	0.00	56	0.05	58	0.05	69	0.04	49	0.04
Pachmann 1927		19	0.33	85	0.00	20	0.08	21	0.44	36	0.31	13	0.37
Paderewski 1930		36	0.26	31	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	54	0.06	43	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		18	0.33	71	0.00	23	0.06	28	0.35	61	0.04	36	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		70	0.13	79	0.00	64	0.06	49	0.06	79	0.03	52	0.04
Poblocka 1999		21	0.31	17	0.01	19	0.07	19	0.45	47	0.06	23	0.16
Rabcewiczowa 1932		79	0.09	62	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	84	0.02	83	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		54	0.20	74	0.00	47	0.05	56	0.05	80	0.03	51	0.04
Rangell 2001		69	0.14	57	0.00	66	0.05	53	0.05	81	0.03	61	0.04
Richter 1976		34	0.26	35	0.00	33	0.10	31	0.30	53	0.07	31	0.14
Rosen 1989		41	0.24	58	0.00	36	0.07	35	0.28	53	0.05	37	0.12
Rosenthal 1930		82	0.07	72	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.06	89	0.00	79	0.04	68	0.04	84	0.02	74	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.08	90	0.00	71	0.04	74	0.04	69	0.04	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		85	0.06	68	0.00	85	0.02	83	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Rosenthal 1931d		73	0.10	63	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	45	0.07	47	0.06
Rossi 2007		78	0.09	69	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	45	0.06	50	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		71	0.12	18	0.01	74	0.04	77	0.04	84	0.02	70	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		63	0.16	44	0.00	58	0.05	55	0.05	78	0.03	66	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		58	0.18	75	0.00	57	0.05	51	0.05	81	0.03	56	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Shebanova 2002		24	0.29	15	0.01	14	0.15	18	0.46	49	0.09	21	0.20
Smith 1975		61	0.17	46	0.00	76	0.04	75	0.04	78	0.03	69	0.03
Sokolov 2002		55	0.19	27	0.00	45	0.05	60	0.05	82	0.02	68	0.03
Sztompka 1959		64	0.16	86	0.00	61	0.04	73	0.04	80	0.03	73	0.03
Tomsic 1995		83	0.06	80	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	88	0.02	85	0.02
Uninsky 1932		33	0.27	65	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.42	53	0.06	26	0.16
Uninsky 1971		44	0.23	39	0.00	52	0.05	57	0.05	81	0.03	54	0.04
Wasowski 1980		37	0.26	76	0.00	32	0.09	27	0.37	58	0.06	29	0.15
Zak 1937		7	0.40	13	0.01	3	0.21	2	0.71	9	0.67	2	0.69
Zak 1951		2	0.42	1	0.30	1	0.29	1	0.74	3	0.75	1	0.74
Random 1		88	-0.04	66	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	70	0.03	87	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.05	22	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	63	0.04	75	0.03
Random 3		89	-0.05	81	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	33	0.16	59	0.04

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).