Fliere 1977

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		62	0.31	62	0.00	66	0.04	79	0.04	64	0.04	79	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		79	0.17	52	0.00	79	0.05	62	0.05	76	0.03	76	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.59	45	0.00	16	0.15	15	0.74	11	0.79	15	0.76
Bacha 2000		80	0.16	86	0.00	78	0.06	53	0.06	67	0.04	70	0.05
Badura 1965		51	0.34	66	0.00	62	0.04	82	0.04	28	0.41	55	0.13
Barbosa 1983		54	0.33	30	0.00	57	0.04	74	0.04	44	0.10	67	0.06
Biret 1990		81	0.15	87	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	73	0.04	86	0.03
Blet 2003		22	0.54	37	0.00	32	0.09	29	0.53	4	0.71	30	0.61
Block 1995		12	0.60	40	0.00	9	0.18	9	0.80	2	0.81	11	0.80
Blumental 1952		61	0.32	44	0.00	55	0.04	75	0.04	31	0.30	59	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		19	0.54	17	0.00	14	0.18	16	0.72	7	0.69	20	0.70
Brailowsky 1960		68	0.28	46	0.00	64	0.04	77	0.04	30	0.40	53	0.13
Bunin 1987		42	0.43	47	0.00	27	0.10	41	0.40	17	0.53	38	0.46
Bunin 1987b		41	0.43	22	0.00	26	0.11	40	0.41	16	0.53	37	0.47
Chiu 1999		14	0.58	56	0.00	20	0.14	19	0.69	5	0.73	19	0.71
Cohen 1997		71	0.25	74	0.00	72	0.05	57	0.05	63	0.04	80	0.04
Cortot 1951		63	0.31	59	0.00	63	0.05	67	0.05	29	0.41	52	0.14
Csalog 1996		35	0.47	53	0.00	44	0.14	44	0.30	9	0.61	43	0.43
Czerny 1949		88	-0.01	75	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	88	0.02	90	0.01
Czerny 1990		23	0.53	9	0.01	17	0.16	21	0.65	7	0.83	18	0.73
Duchoud 2007		43	0.42	57	0.00	40	0.13	36	0.45	8	0.60	35	0.52
Ezaki 2006		70	0.25	20	0.00	70	0.05	60	0.05	46	0.10	62	0.07
Falvay 1989		77	0.22	76	0.00	73	0.04	81	0.04	76	0.03	84	0.03
Farrell 1958		73	0.23	77	0.00	76	0.05	58	0.05	60	0.05	71	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		90	-0.09	78	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	78	0.03	88	0.02
Fliere 1977		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fou 1978		26	0.52	54	0.00	24	0.13	24	0.61	4	0.68	25	0.64
Francois 1956		78	0.20	88	0.00	80	0.04	73	0.04	65	0.04	83	0.04
Friedman 1923		4	0.67	7	0.03	5	0.22	5	0.84	3	0.87	5	0.85
Friedman 1923b		3	0.68	4	0.05	4	0.22	4	0.84	3	0.87	4	0.85
Friedman 1930		9	0.61	28	0.00	11	0.15	10	0.79	5	0.83	10	0.81
Garcia 2007		40	0.43	18	0.00	31	0.11	28	0.58	4	0.68	28	0.63
Garcia 2007b		44	0.40	35	0.00	47	0.11	46	0.11	17	0.59	46	0.25
Gierzod 1998		75	0.22	41	0.00	59	0.04	76	0.04	35	0.26	60	0.10
Gornostaeva 1994		57	0.33	31	0.00	69	0.05	64	0.05	50	0.07	69	0.06
Groot 1988		10	0.61	64	0.00	13	0.16	12	0.77	5	0.77	13	0.77
Harasiewicz 1955		27	0.51	26	0.00	38	0.11	37	0.45	19	0.46	41	0.45
Hatto 1993		39	0.45	24	0.00	41	0.16	32	0.49	26	0.43	39	0.46
Hatto 1997		72	0.24	79	0.00	75	0.05	61	0.05	76	0.03	78	0.04
Horowitz 1949		38	0.46	33	0.00	42	0.12	42	0.35	22	0.55	42	0.44
Indjic 1988		46	0.40	13	0.00	46	0.10	47	0.10	34	0.31	48	0.18
Kapell 1951		48	0.38	80	0.00	45	0.10	45	0.19	26	0.34	45	0.25
Kissin 1993		20	0.54	21	0.00	19	0.14	17	0.72	5	0.82	12	0.77
Kushner 1989		25	0.52	19	0.00	25	0.11	26	0.60	7	0.70	24	0.65
Luisada 1991		21	0.54	29	0.00	30	0.11	27	0.59	11	0.68	26	0.63
Lushtak 2004		66	0.30	65	0.00	65	0.04	71	0.04	34	0.18	61	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		28	0.51	34	0.00	34	0.09	33	0.48	9	0.62	33	0.55
Magaloff 1978		8	0.63	3	0.05	6	0.24	8	0.81	2	0.84	6	0.82
Magin 1975		34	0.49	38	0.00	33	0.10	30	0.51	12	0.73	29	0.61
Michalowski 1933		30	0.50	16	0.00	37	0.12	39	0.43	14	0.53	36	0.48
Milkina 1970		86	0.04	63	0.00	86	0.03	86	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Mohovich 1999		60	0.32	42	0.00	58	0.04	78	0.04	48	0.08	68	0.06
Moravec 1969		53	0.34	55	0.00	52	0.07	51	0.07	53	0.05	64	0.06
Morozova 2008		33	0.49	39	0.00	21	0.14	23	0.63	4	0.71	22	0.67
Neighaus 1950		37	0.46	48	0.00	35	0.10	34	0.48	19	0.42	40	0.45
Niedzielski 1931		31	0.49	49	0.00	28	0.12	25	0.61	9	0.65	27	0.63
Ohlsson 1999		18	0.55	15	0.00	22	0.13	20	0.66	5	0.67	23	0.66
Osinska 1989		47	0.39	11	0.01	48	0.09	48	0.09	24	0.52	47	0.22
Pachmann 1927		11	0.61	12	0.00	15	0.22	11	0.78	2	0.85	9	0.81
Paderewski 1930		24	0.53	60	0.00	23	0.15	22	0.65	5	0.74	21	0.69
Perlemuter 1992		5	0.66	8	0.02	7	0.36	6	0.83	1	0.88	2	0.85
Pierdomenico 2008		32	0.49	27	0.00	39	0.11	38	0.44	6	0.68	32	0.55
Poblocka 1999		17	0.56	6	0.03	10	0.14	18	0.69	2	0.80	16	0.74
Rabcewiczowa 1932		82	0.14	71	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	72	0.03	85	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		36	0.46	14	0.00	29	0.09	35	0.47	15	0.68	31	0.57
Rangell 2001		45	0.40	25	0.00	43	0.12	43	0.32	10	0.52	44	0.41
Richter 1976		2	0.71	2	0.15	2	0.42	2	0.86	2	0.89	1	0.87
Rosen 1989		15	0.58	23	0.00	12	0.14	13	0.76	3	0.76	14	0.76
Rosenthal 1930		59	0.33	50	0.00	67	0.04	68	0.04	35	0.35	57	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.08	61	0.00	82	0.04	80	0.04	65	0.04	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.09	67	0.00	81	0.03	87	0.03	57	0.05	82	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.27	36	0.00	60	0.04	72	0.04	29	0.44	56	0.13
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.05	69	0.00	83	0.05	65	0.05	62	0.03	81	0.04
Rossi 2007		74	0.22	72	0.00	71	0.05	66	0.05	17	0.43	50	0.15
Rubinstein 1939		76	0.22	70	0.00	74	0.06	54	0.06	57	0.06	65	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		50	0.35	43	0.00	51	0.08	50	0.08	34	0.28	51	0.15
Rubinstein 1966		58	0.33	73	0.00	56	0.05	59	0.05	70	0.04	77	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		55	0.33	89	0.00	54	0.05	63	0.05	30	0.34	54	0.13
Shebanova 2002		6	0.65	5	0.04	3	0.31	3	0.85	4	0.86	3	0.85
Smith 1975		67	0.28	68	0.00	77	0.05	56	0.05	68	0.04	73	0.04
Sokolov 2002		49	0.37	58	0.00	49	0.09	49	0.09	34	0.29	49	0.16
Sztompka 1959		7	0.65	10	0.01	8	0.15	7	0.82	2	0.83	7	0.82
Tomsic 1995		65	0.30	81	0.00	61	0.04	70	0.04	66	0.04	74	0.04
Uninsky 1932		16	0.56	32	0.00	18	0.18	14	0.75	7	0.73	17	0.74
Uninsky 1971		56	0.33	82	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	49	0.07	66	0.06
Wasowski 1980		29	0.50	51	0.00	36	0.10	31	0.50	19	0.57	34	0.53
Zak 1937		52	0.34	90	0.00	53	0.06	55	0.06	39	0.19	58	0.11
Zak 1951		64	0.30	83	0.00	68	0.04	69	0.04	49	0.06	72	0.05
Average		1	0.74	1	0.53	1	0.53	1	0.91	3	0.74	8	0.82
Random 1		87	0.02	84	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	37	0.18	63	0.07
Random 2		91	-0.09	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01
Random 3		89	-0.02	85	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	68	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).