Biret 1990

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		45	0.24	76	0.00	52	0.06	52	0.06	87	0.02	77	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		87	0.01	77	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	85	0.02	83	0.02
Ashkenazy 1981		59	0.16	46	0.00	72	0.04	68	0.04	82	0.04	67	0.04
Bacha 2000		65	0.15	84	0.00	68	0.04	76	0.04	86	0.02	69	0.03
Badura 1965		83	0.03	85	0.00	63	0.04	62	0.04	86	0.03	78	0.03
Barbosa 1983		40	0.25	62	0.00	39	0.08	40	0.27	59	0.05	40	0.12
Biret 1990		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Blet 2003		25	0.30	7	0.02	29	0.10	28	0.47	44	0.16	25	0.27
Block 1995		73	0.09	63	0.00	75	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	84	0.02
Blumental 1952		80	0.06	64	0.00	88	0.02	84	0.02	88	0.02	85	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		58	0.17	51	0.00	56	0.06	54	0.06	80	0.03	66	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		70	0.12	60	0.00	69	0.04	75	0.04	81	0.03	71	0.03
Bunin 1987		35	0.28	86	0.00	31	0.13	30	0.45	41	0.15	26	0.26
Bunin 1987b		32	0.28	57	0.00	30	0.11	29	0.46	40	0.16	24	0.27
Chiu 1999		19	0.36	26	0.00	27	0.16	23	0.53	69	0.05	32	0.16
Cohen 1997		17	0.37	5	0.03	10	0.15	14	0.63	16	0.56	8	0.59
Cortot 1951		52	0.20	24	0.00	47	0.06	53	0.06	48	0.06	53	0.06
Csalog 1996		13	0.41	2	0.12	5	0.24	18	0.59	16	0.52	11	0.55
Czerny 1949		3	0.47	6	0.02	6	0.17	5	0.73	13	0.74	4	0.73
Czerny 1990		55	0.18	58	0.00	61	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.03	79	0.03
Duchoud 2007		5	0.44	22	0.00	8	0.17	7	0.71	23	0.46	10	0.57
Ezaki 2006		47	0.23	12	0.01	17	0.10	36	0.34	40	0.22	23	0.27
Falvay 1989		20	0.34	59	0.00	25	0.12	22	0.55	35	0.21	19	0.34
Farrell 1958		7	0.43	14	0.01	4	0.21	4	0.77	4	0.67	5	0.72
Ferenczy 1958		72	0.11	78	0.00	65	0.05	60	0.05	48	0.07	52	0.06
Fliere 1977		64	0.15	70	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	85	0.03	70	0.03
Fou 1978		71	0.11	79	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	68	0.04	60	0.04
Francois 1956		8	0.43	9	0.01	3	0.29	3	0.79	12	0.70	3	0.74
Friedman 1923		60	0.16	52	0.00	53	0.09	47	0.09	70	0.04	54	0.06
Friedman 1923b		56	0.17	33	0.00	42	0.07	43	0.16	62	0.06	45	0.10
Friedman 1930		44	0.24	45	0.00	50	0.08	49	0.08	67	0.05	51	0.06
Garcia 2007		68	0.13	43	0.00	59	0.05	59	0.05	82	0.03	63	0.04
Garcia 2007b		28	0.30	50	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	58	0.06	48	0.08
Gierzod 1998		91	-0.18	87	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Gornostaeva 1994		9	0.43	15	0.01	14	0.19	10	0.67	21	0.59	7	0.63
Groot 1988		46	0.24	88	0.00	49	0.08	48	0.08	80	0.03	59	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		22	0.32	80	0.00	26	0.12	16	0.59	65	0.05	31	0.17
Hatto 1993		53	0.20	27	0.00	58	0.05	55	0.05	83	0.03	68	0.04
Hatto 1997		4	0.45	4	0.03	12	0.12	6	0.72	18	0.45	9	0.57
Horowitz 1949		41	0.25	34	0.00	36	0.10	37	0.34	61	0.05	37	0.13
Indjic 1988		42	0.25	32	0.00	51	0.09	46	0.09	70	0.05	49	0.07
Kapell 1951		24	0.31	47	0.00	32	0.11	27	0.50	74	0.05	33	0.16
Kissin 1993		86	0.01	71	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03
Kushner 1989		63	0.16	20	0.00	67	0.04	67	0.04	83	0.03	73	0.03
Luisada 1991		14	0.38	29	0.00	19	0.10	12	0.65	51	0.07	28	0.21
Lushtak 2004		62	0.16	72	0.00	55	0.05	56	0.05	75	0.04	65	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		85	0.02	89	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	90	0.02	82	0.02
Magaloff 1978		50	0.21	65	0.00	48	0.07	50	0.07	65	0.04	55	0.05
Magin 1975		69	0.12	49	0.00	71	0.04	69	0.04	60	0.06	56	0.05
Michalowski 1933		33	0.28	61	0.00	35	0.15	32	0.45	59	0.06	34	0.16
Milkina 1970		15	0.37	25	0.00	7	0.19	8	0.71	11	0.64	6	0.67
Mohovich 1999		79	0.06	90	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.02	86	0.02
Moravec 1969		54	0.19	66	0.00	46	0.07	51	0.07	52	0.05	50	0.06
Morozova 2008		51	0.21	81	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	81	0.03	62	0.04
Neighaus 1950		10	0.42	18	0.00	9	0.15	11	0.65	35	0.28	18	0.43
Niedzielski 1931		78	0.06	44	0.00	62	0.04	71	0.04	84	0.03	72	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.32	19	0.00	24	0.14	25	0.51	48	0.06	30	0.17
Osinska 1989		1	0.55	1	0.58	1	0.57	1	0.88	5	0.80	1	0.84
Pachmann 1927		61	0.16	82	0.00	64	0.04	61	0.04	59	0.06	57	0.05
Paderewski 1930		76	0.08	28	0.00	77	0.04	64	0.04	85	0.03	74	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		75	0.08	73	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.02	81	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		38	0.26	31	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.20	50	0.06	41	0.11
Poblocka 1999		34	0.28	53	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.19	58	0.05	43	0.10
Rabcewiczowa 1932		11	0.42	8	0.02	18	0.14	20	0.57	26	0.52	12	0.54
Rachmaninoff 1923		30	0.30	21	0.00	34	0.13	33	0.44	43	0.14	27	0.25
Rangell 2001		49	0.22	40	0.00	37	0.11	34	0.40	49	0.06	36	0.15
Richter 1976		66	0.14	54	0.00	78	0.04	72	0.04	81	0.04	61	0.04
Rosen 1989		37	0.27	41	0.00	38	0.13	38	0.33	65	0.04	42	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		57	0.17	23	0.00	57	0.05	58	0.05	82	0.03	64	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		90	-0.07	67	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Rosenthal 1931b		89	-0.02	56	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.04	74	0.00	73	0.03	77	0.03	86	0.02	88	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		77	0.07	91	0.00	70	0.04	66	0.04	70	0.03	80	0.03
Rossi 2007		43	0.24	38	0.00	60	0.04	65	0.04	35	0.16	46	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		18	0.36	39	0.00	20	0.11	13	0.64	19	0.32	17	0.45
Rubinstein 1952		31	0.28	11	0.01	23	0.12	24	0.53	38	0.17	21	0.30
Rubinstein 1966		48	0.22	83	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	51	0.05	47	0.08
Schilhawsky 1960		36	0.27	35	0.00	40	0.09	39	0.31	38	0.25	22	0.28
Shebanova 2002		67	0.13	16	0.00	80	0.04	70	0.04	80	0.03	76	0.03
Smith 1975		12	0.41	10	0.01	11	0.14	21	0.56	20	0.49	14	0.52
Sokolov 2002		21	0.34	36	0.00	22	0.10	26	0.50	23	0.41	16	0.45
Sztompka 1959		74	0.09	75	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.01	89	0.01
Tomsic 1995		39	0.25	68	0.00	28	0.14	35	0.40	47	0.06	35	0.15
Uninsky 1932		26	0.30	13	0.01	33	0.10	31	0.45	70	0.04	38	0.13
Uninsky 1971		16	0.37	30	0.00	21	0.13	19	0.58	41	0.16	20	0.30
Wasowski 1980		2	0.48	3	0.07	2	0.31	2	0.81	10	0.68	2	0.74
Zak 1937		27	0.30	37	0.00	16	0.12	17	0.59	26	0.40	15	0.49
Zak 1951		29	0.30	17	0.00	15	0.14	15	0.60	19	0.49	13	0.54
Average		6	0.44	55	0.00	13	0.15	9	0.71	61	0.05	29	0.19
Random 1		84	0.03	42	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	20	0.33	44	0.10
Random 2		82	0.04	48	0.00	66	0.04	63	0.04	14	0.44	39	0.13
Random 3		88	-0.02	69	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	36	0.15	58	0.05

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).