Horowitz 1949

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		68	0.20	82	0.00	68	0.07	52	0.07	86	0.03	59	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		77	0.12	83	0.00	78	0.05	59	0.05	70	0.04	69	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		21	0.45	7	0.04	17	0.09	16	0.63	36	0.38	22	0.49
Bacha 2000		78	0.10	46	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	80	0.02	73	0.03
Badura 1965		72	0.16	71	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	65	0.04	71	0.04
Barbosa 1983		32	0.38	25	0.00	29	0.14	19	0.57	12	0.59	13	0.58
Biret 1990		59	0.25	55	0.00	57	0.05	61	0.05	37	0.34	46	0.13
Blet 2003		20	0.45	12	0.01	23	0.09	30	0.44	35	0.38	28	0.41
Block 1995		34	0.37	67	0.00	41	0.11	37	0.31	51	0.06	44	0.14
Blumental 1952		52	0.30	16	0.01	37	0.07	40	0.28	30	0.31	36	0.29
Boshniakovich 1969		26	0.41	57	0.00	31	0.12	31	0.43	37	0.29	34	0.35
Brailowsky 1960		60	0.24	74	0.00	58	0.06	53	0.06	52	0.07	53	0.06
Bunin 1987		13	0.47	10	0.02	10	0.14	12	0.69	5	0.67	9	0.68
Bunin 1987b		15	0.47	34	0.00	12	0.13	13	0.69	5	0.66	10	0.67
Chiu 1999		8	0.49	8	0.03	3	0.20	3	0.79	11	0.67	3	0.73
Cohen 1997		75	0.14	32	0.00	76	0.04	78	0.04	71	0.03	78	0.03
Cortot 1951		79	0.07	75	0.00	82	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.02
Csalog 1996		53	0.30	18	0.01	52	0.05	69	0.05	43	0.15	49	0.09
Czerny 1949		87	0.00	72	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	80	0.03	87	0.02
Czerny 1990		16	0.46	63	0.00	20	0.09	14	0.67	21	0.68	11	0.67
Duchoud 2007		35	0.37	50	0.00	40	0.09	36	0.32	39	0.21	37	0.26
Ezaki 2006		82	0.05	65	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	83	0.02	84	0.02
Falvay 1989		64	0.21	43	0.00	60	0.05	67	0.05	82	0.03	65	0.04
Farrell 1958		55	0.29	58	0.00	43	0.08	45	0.16	26	0.38	38	0.25
Ferenczy 1958		88	-0.01	52	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	53	0.06	70	0.04
Fliere 1977		18	0.46	42	0.00	22	0.10	22	0.55	42	0.35	25	0.44
Fou 1978		61	0.23	60	0.00	55	0.05	63	0.05	76	0.03	67	0.04
Francois 1956		73	0.16	31	0.00	73	0.04	73	0.04	70	0.03	83	0.03
Friedman 1923		11	0.47	47	0.00	9	0.12	6	0.75	14	0.69	6	0.72
Friedman 1923b		5	0.49	22	0.00	6	0.22	4	0.78	13	0.73	2	0.75
Friedman 1930		6	0.49	3	0.12	5	0.26	5	0.75	10	0.71	5	0.73
Garcia 2007		25	0.42	36	0.00	26	0.09	18	0.61	17	0.51	16	0.56
Garcia 2007b		22	0.44	44	0.00	27	0.10	25	0.53	15	0.61	14	0.57
Gierzod 1998		86	0.00	54	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.02	88	0.02
Gornostaeva 1994		71	0.17	69	0.00	72	0.06	58	0.06	84	0.02	79	0.03
Groot 1988		14	0.47	70	0.00	21	0.09	23	0.54	34	0.25	29	0.37
Harasiewicz 1955		40	0.36	38	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.18	48	0.06	48	0.10
Hatto 1993		30	0.39	14	0.01	18	0.12	20	0.57	28	0.35	24	0.45
Hatto 1997		51	0.31	76	0.00	38	0.08	42	0.24	45	0.11	43	0.16
Horowitz 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Indjic 1988		27	0.40	88	0.00	19	0.09	21	0.55	29	0.36	26	0.44
Kapell 1951		2	0.56	2	0.14	2	0.22	2	0.79	4	0.71	1	0.75
Kissin 1993		49	0.31	56	0.00	53	0.05	68	0.05	58	0.07	55	0.06
Kushner 1989		45	0.35	84	0.00	51	0.08	47	0.08	54	0.06	50	0.07
Luisada 1991		17	0.46	5	0.06	14	0.13	29	0.45	29	0.41	27	0.43
Lushtak 2004		65	0.21	39	0.00	64	0.06	55	0.06	78	0.03	72	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		46	0.33	61	0.00	48	0.07	50	0.07	48	0.07	51	0.07
Magaloff 1978		31	0.39	24	0.00	32	0.11	28	0.46	39	0.27	33	0.35
Magin 1975		54	0.29	51	0.00	62	0.04	71	0.04	50	0.08	54	0.06
Michalowski 1933		23	0.43	37	0.00	28	0.11	24	0.54	19	0.47	20	0.50
Milkina 1970		69	0.18	13	0.01	61	0.04	75	0.04	51	0.06	57	0.05
Mohovich 1999		56	0.28	23	0.00	56	0.05	64	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.05
Moravec 1969		42	0.35	29	0.00	45	0.09	44	0.17	36	0.19	40	0.18
Morozova 2008		47	0.33	33	0.00	33	0.10	32	0.40	41	0.13	39	0.23
Neighaus 1950		43	0.35	48	0.00	49	0.08	48	0.08	71	0.04	56	0.06
Niedzielski 1931		7	0.49	26	0.00	13	0.14	7	0.74	11	0.62	8	0.68
Ohlsson 1999		37	0.37	17	0.01	42	0.09	41	0.25	46	0.07	45	0.13
Osinska 1989		62	0.22	53	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	61	0.04	63	0.04
Pachmann 1927		38	0.37	49	0.00	35	0.08	34	0.37	36	0.36	32	0.36
Paderewski 1930		39	0.36	64	0.00	46	0.08	46	0.08	36	0.32	42	0.16
Perlemuter 1992		41	0.35	28	0.00	50	0.07	51	0.07	48	0.06	52	0.06
Pierdomenico 2008		29	0.39	21	0.01	30	0.13	33	0.40	18	0.50	23	0.45
Poblocka 1999		33	0.38	27	0.00	34	0.09	35	0.36	27	0.37	30	0.36
Rabcewiczowa 1932		70	0.17	89	0.00	74	0.04	77	0.04	77	0.03	75	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		4	0.51	4	0.10	4	0.21	9	0.73	8	0.74	4	0.73
Rangell 2001		48	0.32	30	0.00	54	0.06	56	0.06	69	0.05	61	0.05
Richter 1976		9	0.48	6	0.05	7	0.15	10	0.72	28	0.66	7	0.69
Rosen 1989		44	0.35	45	0.00	39	0.09	38	0.30	56	0.04	47	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		50	0.31	40	0.00	47	0.08	49	0.08	33	0.40	41	0.18
Rosenthal 1931		89	-0.04	85	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		83	0.03	90	0.00	83	0.03	81	0.03	77	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		76	0.13	77	0.00	75	0.04	74	0.04	80	0.02	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.06	78	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03
Rossi 2007		85	0.01	86	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	48	0.05	74	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		67	0.20	62	0.00	66	0.05	62	0.05	64	0.04	66	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		57	0.27	35	0.00	59	0.06	54	0.06	65	0.04	62	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		58	0.25	73	0.00	63	0.05	65	0.05	62	0.05	58	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		28	0.39	20	0.01	24	0.09	27	0.48	5	0.65	15	0.56
Shebanova 2002		10	0.48	15	0.01	8	0.14	17	0.62	38	0.39	21	0.49
Smith 1975		81	0.06	79	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.02	85	0.02
Sokolov 2002		66	0.21	80	0.00	67	0.06	57	0.06	63	0.03	64	0.04
Sztompka 1959		19	0.46	19	0.01	16	0.10	15	0.64	25	0.46	17	0.54
Tomsic 1995		63	0.22	68	0.00	69	0.05	60	0.05	76	0.03	68	0.04
Uninsky 1932		12	0.47	41	0.00	15	0.13	8	0.73	27	0.40	18	0.54
Uninsky 1971		74	0.16	87	0.00	71	0.05	66	0.05	83	0.02	76	0.03
Wasowski 1980		3	0.53	9	0.02	11	0.13	11	0.71	26	0.54	12	0.62
Zak 1937		24	0.42	11	0.01	25	0.09	26	0.51	17	0.52	19	0.51
Zak 1951		36	0.37	81	0.00	36	0.08	39	0.30	23	0.44	31	0.36
Average		1	0.58	1	0.26	1	0.26	1	0.84	43	0.11	35	0.30
Random 1		91	-0.11	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	85	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		84	0.01	66	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	66	0.04	77	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.05	59	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	73	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).