Afanassiev 2001

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		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.30	40	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	26	0.43	39	0.25
Ashkenazy 1981		38	0.33	77	0.00	51	0.07	47	0.07	48	0.08	57	0.07
Bacha 2000		41	0.32	19	0.01	48	0.05	53	0.05	32	0.27	45	0.12
Badura 1965		39	0.32	18	0.01	47	0.07	49	0.07	27	0.43	43	0.17
Barbosa 1983		16	0.39	8	0.02	24	0.07	29	0.37	22	0.43	28	0.40
Biret 1990		64	0.24	78	0.00	80	0.02	87	0.02	52	0.06	88	0.03
Blet 2003		18	0.39	22	0.00	30	0.07	34	0.34	34	0.39	33	0.36
Block 1995		82	0.19	73	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.03
Blumental 1952		33	0.34	39	0.00	35	0.09	28	0.38	21	0.50	24	0.44
Boshniakovich 1969		66	0.23	62	0.00	65	0.04	65	0.04	60	0.06	67	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		31	0.35	24	0.00	36	0.07	38	0.26	17	0.54	31	0.37
Bunin 1987		52	0.30	68	0.00	56	0.07	48	0.07	40	0.16	51	0.11
Bunin 1987b		51	0.30	43	0.00	55	0.04	67	0.04	42	0.14	56	0.07
Chiu 1999		11	0.41	57	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.27	53	0.07	44	0.14
Cohen 1997		19	0.39	29	0.00	21	0.09	17	0.51	11	0.59	15	0.55
Cortot 1951		86	0.16	81	0.00	81	0.02	89	0.02	69	0.03	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		69	0.22	69	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	49	0.07	66	0.05
Czerny 1949		34	0.34	63	0.00	39	0.08	39	0.26	17	0.70	26	0.43
Czerny 1990		57	0.27	53	0.00	49	0.05	54	0.05	40	0.27	48	0.12
Duchoud 2007		58	0.27	70	0.00	63	0.04	73	0.04	58	0.05	77	0.04
Ezaki 2006		2	0.52	3	0.05	2	0.20	2	0.71	3	0.76	1	0.73
Falvay 1989		15	0.40	21	0.01	33	0.07	33	0.34	15	0.43	30	0.38
Farrell 1958		27	0.36	6	0.03	25	0.08	36	0.28	19	0.48	32	0.37
Ferenczy 1958		25	0.36	15	0.01	18	0.08	22	0.47	6	0.83	6	0.62
Fliere 1977		45	0.31	58	0.00	58	0.04	64	0.04	79	0.04	70	0.04
Fou 1978		10	0.41	51	0.00	28	0.09	23	0.46	28	0.39	27	0.42
Francois 1956		61	0.25	54	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	33	0.38	49	0.12
Friedman 1923		60	0.26	30	0.00	60	0.03	74	0.03	61	0.06	78	0.04
Friedman 1923b		59	0.26	14	0.01	61	0.05	52	0.05	61	0.06	68	0.05
Friedman 1930		71	0.21	74	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	79	0.04	84	0.03
Garcia 2007		75	0.20	55	0.00	42	0.08	42	0.20	42	0.20	42	0.20
Garcia 2007b		72	0.21	64	0.00	72	0.04	59	0.04	48	0.08	58	0.06
Gierzod 1998		35	0.34	26	0.00	17	0.08	18	0.51	14	0.64	11	0.57
Gornostaeva 1994		47	0.30	45	0.00	43	0.07	44	0.16	30	0.39	40	0.25
Groot 1988		12	0.41	34	0.00	11	0.11	8	0.60	25	0.39	20	0.48
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.39	65	0.00	26	0.07	21	0.49	27	0.32	29	0.40
Hatto 1993		32	0.34	41	0.00	23	0.07	25	0.45	34	0.28	34	0.35
Hatto 1997		6	0.43	23	0.00	9	0.14	10	0.59	8	0.56	10	0.57
Horowitz 1949		76	0.20	86	0.00	77	0.03	86	0.03	52	0.07	62	0.05
Indjic 1988		42	0.32	44	0.00	34	0.06	31	0.35	36	0.27	37	0.31
Kapell 1951		81	0.19	28	0.00	70	0.04	61	0.04	50	0.07	60	0.05
Kissin 1993		78	0.20	79	0.00	75	0.04	58	0.04	64	0.06	65	0.05
Kushner 1989		55	0.28	82	0.00	66	0.04	68	0.04	79	0.04	73	0.04
Luisada 1991		24	0.37	17	0.01	29	0.07	30	0.36	37	0.28	36	0.32
Lushtak 2004		73	0.21	87	0.00	83	0.03	85	0.03	74	0.04	85	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		29	0.35	32	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.23	53	0.06	46	0.12
Magaloff 1978		79	0.19	37	0.00	73	0.04	69	0.04	82	0.03	80	0.03
Magin 1975		85	0.17	75	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.04	81	0.03
Michalowski 1933		80	0.19	46	0.00	74	0.05	56	0.05	60	0.06	64	0.05
Milkina 1970		9	0.41	27	0.00	15	0.14	15	0.55	8	0.65	8	0.60
Mohovich 1999		14	0.40	12	0.01	10	0.15	9	0.60	12	0.60	9	0.60
Moravec 1969		37	0.33	9	0.02	22	0.10	20	0.49	19	0.46	21	0.47
Morozova 2008		4	0.45	66	0.00	13	0.10	12	0.58	16	0.47	17	0.52
Neighaus 1950		8	0.42	2	0.10	4	0.21	7	0.63	13	0.50	13	0.56
Niedzielski 1931		70	0.21	83	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	70	0.04	72	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		53	0.29	72	0.00	67	0.04	70	0.04	62	0.04	76	0.04
Osinska 1989		87	0.15	48	0.00	82	0.03	78	0.03	67	0.04	79	0.03
Pachmann 1927		65	0.24	42	0.00	76	0.03	81	0.03	52	0.07	63	0.05
Paderewski 1930		83	0.19	88	0.00	78	0.03	77	0.03	70	0.05	75	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		56	0.28	52	0.00	62	0.04	62	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		77	0.20	76	0.00	71	0.04	66	0.04	48	0.07	59	0.05
Poblocka 1999		26	0.36	11	0.02	32	0.08	32	0.34	29	0.35	35	0.34
Rabcewiczowa 1932		28	0.35	25	0.00	16	0.09	19	0.49	20	0.65	12	0.56
Rachmaninoff 1923		23	0.37	35	0.00	31	0.08	27	0.41	24	0.46	25	0.43
Rangell 2001		36	0.34	38	0.00	20	0.08	24	0.45	11	0.49	22	0.47
Richter 1976		84	0.19	84	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.04	82	0.03
Rosen 1989		46	0.31	36	0.00	38	0.07	35	0.29	42	0.15	41	0.21
Rosenthal 1930		5	0.45	7	0.02	3	0.18	3	0.66	8	0.71	4	0.68
Rosenthal 1931		21	0.38	10	0.02	7	0.12	5	0.65	8	0.76	3	0.70
Rosenthal 1931b		20	0.38	33	0.00	8	0.15	6	0.65	7	0.80	2	0.72
Rosenthal 1931c		40	0.32	49	0.00	27	0.08	26	0.43	12	0.61	18	0.51
Rosenthal 1931d		44	0.32	13	0.01	12	0.10	14	0.55	7	0.70	7	0.62
Rossi 2007		90	-0.03	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		50	0.30	67	0.00	50	0.06	51	0.06	40	0.12	54	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		68	0.23	31	0.00	52	0.06	50	0.06	43	0.11	55	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		13	0.41	50	0.00	14	0.12	11	0.59	17	0.45	16	0.52
Schilhawsky 1960		74	0.20	90	0.00	88	0.03	76	0.03	73	0.04	83	0.03
Shebanova 2002		54	0.29	80	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	46	0.12	53	0.09
Smith 1975		22	0.38	85	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.17	18	0.50	38	0.29
Sokolov 2002		49	0.30	16	0.01	59	0.05	55	0.05	39	0.21	52	0.10
Sztompka 1959		7	0.43	5	0.04	5	0.26	13	0.57	18	0.53	14	0.55
Tomsic 1995		30	0.35	59	0.00	19	0.08	16	0.52	10	0.48	19	0.50
Uninsky 1932		43	0.32	47	0.00	40	0.07	41	0.22	56	0.06	50	0.11
Uninsky 1971		3	0.47	4	0.04	6	0.22	4	0.65	5	0.60	5	0.62
Wasowski 1980		67	0.23	91	0.00	68	0.04	72	0.04	68	0.05	69	0.04
Zak 1937		63	0.24	60	0.00	57	0.04	60	0.04	50	0.07	61	0.05
Zak 1951		62	0.24	20	0.01	53	0.04	57	0.04	57	0.05	74	0.04
Average		1	0.56	1	0.50	1	0.49	1	0.77	33	0.25	23	0.44
Random 1		89	0.00	71	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	58	0.04	87	0.03
Random 2		88	0.10	56	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	9	0.49	47	0.12
Random 3		91	-0.11	61	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	65	0.03	89	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).