Ferenczy 1958

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		7	0.36	13	0.02	6	0.16	6	0.83	22	0.47	11	0.62
Anderszewski 2003		23	0.27	23	0.00	19	0.15	22	0.70	28	0.34	19	0.49
Ashkenazy 1981		75	-0.02	50	0.00	77	0.04	67	0.04	89	0.02	73	0.03
Bacha 2000		10	0.34	6	0.04	14	0.17	10	0.80	26	0.38	16	0.55
Badura 1965		33	0.22	29	0.00	27	0.17	29	0.61	39	0.19	24	0.34
Barbosa 1983		40	0.15	59	0.00	41	0.12	40	0.33	75	0.04	41	0.11
Biret 1990		45	0.11	75	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	60	0.05	47	0.06
Blet 2003		77	-0.03	63	0.00	66	0.03	82	0.03	90	0.01	83	0.02
Block 1995		37	0.18	32	0.00	35	0.09	32	0.56	79	0.04	35	0.15
Blumental 1952		34	0.20	24	0.00	23	0.13	26	0.65	52	0.06	26	0.20
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.00	76	0.00	56	0.06	60	0.06	82	0.03	58	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		9	0.34	20	0.00	16	0.15	9	0.81	21	0.52	9	0.65
Bunin 1987		55	0.06	77	0.00	60	0.06	57	0.06	86	0.03	59	0.04
Bunin 1987b		54	0.07	41	0.00	59	0.06	54	0.06	81	0.03	55	0.04
Chiu 1999		50	0.08	64	0.00	73	0.04	72	0.04	89	0.02	64	0.03
Cohen 1997		16	0.31	9	0.02	7	0.15	16	0.75	22	0.51	12	0.62
Cortot 1951		5	0.39	12	0.02	11	0.18	7	0.82	13	0.59	6	0.70
Csalog 1996		78	-0.03	78	0.00	81	0.03	85	0.03	90	0.01	82	0.02
Czerny 1949		1	0.46	1	0.42	1	0.41	1	0.91	4	0.86	1	0.88
Czerny 1990		87	-0.12	84	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.01	90	0.01
Duchoud 2007		68	0.00	79	0.00	79	0.04	66	0.04	88	0.02	71	0.03
Ezaki 2006		2	0.44	5	0.06	2	0.23	2	0.87	22	0.60	5	0.72
Falvay 1989		12	0.33	7	0.03	15	0.18	17	0.75	25	0.35	18	0.51
Farrell 1958		26	0.24	58	0.00	31	0.11	30	0.59	54	0.06	27	0.19
Ferenczy 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fliere 1977		84	-0.09	68	0.00	86	0.03	78	0.03	90	0.01	77	0.02
Fou 1978		22	0.28	27	0.00	24	0.15	19	0.71	73	0.03	33	0.15
Francois 1956		17	0.31	40	0.00	13	0.23	20	0.71	24	0.52	13	0.61
Friedman 1923		88	-0.12	80	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Friedman 1923b		89	-0.13	85	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	91	0.01	89	0.01
Friedman 1930		90	-0.13	86	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	91	0.01	88	0.01
Garcia 2007		51	0.08	65	0.00	55	0.07	50	0.07	81	0.03	49	0.05
Garcia 2007b		74	-0.02	34	0.00	64	0.06	59	0.06	84	0.03	61	0.04
Gierzod 1998		21	0.29	19	0.00	25	0.15	21	0.71	37	0.25	22	0.42
Gornostaeva 1994		18	0.30	30	0.00	22	0.17	15	0.75	29	0.45	15	0.58
Groot 1988		76	-0.03	87	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	90	0.02	85	0.02
Harasiewicz 1955		32	0.22	81	0.00	37	0.15	34	0.53	81	0.03	39	0.13
Hatto 1993		57	0.04	37	0.00	63	0.04	65	0.04	88	0.02	74	0.03
Hatto 1997		35	0.20	36	0.00	38	0.18	35	0.53	68	0.04	34	0.15
Horowitz 1949		69	-0.01	66	0.00	53	0.06	53	0.06	82	0.03	56	0.04
Indjic 1988		71	-0.01	46	0.00	76	0.04	69	0.04	87	0.02	69	0.03
Kapell 1951		59	0.02	47	0.00	58	0.08	46	0.08	84	0.02	54	0.04
Kissin 1993		83	-0.08	42	0.00	83	0.03	76	0.03	90	0.01	81	0.02
Kushner 1989		53	0.07	52	0.00	50	0.07	49	0.07	85	0.02	53	0.04
Luisada 1991		66	0.00	69	0.00	78	0.05	63	0.05	90	0.01	75	0.02
Lushtak 2004		31	0.23	14	0.01	32	0.13	33	0.55	51	0.06	29	0.18
Malcuzynski 1961		44	0.11	43	0.00	43	0.11	43	0.25	86	0.02	46	0.07
Magaloff 1978		64	0.00	60	0.00	69	0.04	73	0.04	88	0.02	65	0.03
Magin 1975		91	-0.18	88	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	91	0.01	86	0.01
Michalowski 1933		70	-0.01	53	0.00	65	0.03	74	0.03	87	0.02	80	0.02
Milkina 1970		8	0.36	16	0.01	9	0.19	5	0.83	16	0.54	8	0.67
Mohovich 1999		13	0.32	8	0.02	12	0.18	14	0.76	31	0.27	20	0.45
Moravec 1969		30	0.23	48	0.00	33	0.13	31	0.58	50	0.05	30	0.17
Morozova 2008		39	0.15	54	0.00	49	0.06	61	0.06	85	0.03	57	0.04
Neighaus 1950		38	0.16	61	0.00	36	0.13	37	0.52	80	0.03	40	0.12
Niedzielski 1931		72	-0.01	89	0.00	74	0.03	83	0.03	89	0.02	78	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		65	0.00	90	0.00	70	0.04	68	0.04	90	0.02	68	0.03
Osinska 1989		36	0.19	18	0.01	39	0.16	38	0.45	63	0.04	37	0.13
Pachmann 1927		61	0.01	70	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	89	0.01	79	0.02
Paderewski 1930		79	-0.03	39	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	89	0.02	66	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		63	0.00	55	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	86	0.02	62	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		47	0.09	38	0.00	52	0.07	52	0.07	83	0.02	52	0.04
Poblocka 1999		60	0.01	82	0.00	57	0.07	47	0.07	89	0.02	50	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		6	0.36	21	0.00	8	0.18	8	0.82	14	0.71	4	0.76
Rachmaninoff 1923		52	0.07	71	0.00	51	0.06	56	0.06	85	0.03	51	0.04
Rangell 2001		28	0.24	17	0.01	20	0.12	23	0.70	41	0.13	25	0.30
Richter 1976		86	-0.12	83	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	87	0.01
Rosen 1989		25	0.25	15	0.01	29	0.10	28	0.63	68	0.04	32	0.16
Rosenthal 1930		24	0.25	28	0.00	21	0.12	25	0.68	28	0.42	17	0.53
Rosenthal 1931		3	0.41	2	0.10	3	0.25	3	0.86	7	0.78	2	0.82
Rosenthal 1931b		4	0.40	10	0.02	4	0.19	4	0.85	8	0.80	3	0.82
Rosenthal 1931c		14	0.32	22	0.00	18	0.20	18	0.73	27	0.47	14	0.59
Rosenthal 1931d		20	0.29	25	0.00	17	0.17	13	0.77	14	0.55	10	0.65
Rossi 2007		58	0.02	62	0.00	67	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.03	63	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		29	0.23	56	0.00	34	0.13	36	0.52	68	0.04	36	0.14
Rubinstein 1952		67	0.00	51	0.00	48	0.06	55	0.06	82	0.03	60	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		11	0.34	4	0.07	10	0.17	11	0.78	32	0.25	21	0.44
Schilhawsky 1960		46	0.09	31	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.15	66	0.04	44	0.08
Shebanova 2002		80	-0.04	72	0.00	82	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.02	84	0.02
Smith 1975		15	0.31	3	0.08	5	0.15	12	0.78	12	0.61	7	0.69
Sokolov 2002		41	0.14	33	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.16	80	0.03	45	0.07
Sztompka 1959		73	-0.01	67	0.00	62	0.05	62	0.05	88	0.02	67	0.03
Tomsic 1995		42	0.14	11	0.02	28	0.12	39	0.44	68	0.04	38	0.13
Uninsky 1932		49	0.08	45	0.00	54	0.06	58	0.06	88	0.02	70	0.03
Uninsky 1971		19	0.30	26	0.00	26	0.22	24	0.69	60	0.05	28	0.19
Wasowski 1980		85	-0.10	91	0.00	84	0.03	77	0.03	91	0.01	76	0.02
Zak 1937		48	0.09	73	0.00	47	0.07	51	0.07	74	0.03	48	0.05
Zak 1951		43	0.13	57	0.00	42	0.11	42	0.27	82	0.03	43	0.09
Average		27	0.24	49	0.00	30	0.11	27	0.63	75	0.04	31	0.16
Random 1		81	-0.05	74	0.00	80	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03	72	0.03
Random 2		56	0.04	44	0.00	40	0.11	41	0.29	8	0.49	23	0.38
Random 3		82	-0.07	35	0.00	68	0.04	70	0.04	27	0.28	42	0.11

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).