Kapell 1951

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		70	0.19	35	0.00	69	0.07	50	0.07	61	0.04	67	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		68	0.21	72	0.00	64	0.05	65	0.05	41	0.14	52	0.08
Ashkenazy 1981		9	0.50	39	0.00	11	0.13	9	0.62	27	0.58	10	0.60
Bacha 2000		39	0.35	16	0.01	25	0.07	31	0.28	18	0.50	23	0.37
Badura 1965		74	0.16	73	0.00	72	0.06	62	0.06	81	0.03	78	0.04
Barbosa 1983		16	0.43	28	0.00	14	0.10	12	0.49	9	0.64	11	0.56
Biret 1990		49	0.31	38	0.00	57	0.05	74	0.05	27	0.50	44	0.16
Blet 2003		20	0.40	27	0.00	16	0.10	15	0.47	21	0.56	12	0.51
Block 1995		53	0.30	43	0.00	62	0.07	49	0.07	58	0.05	60	0.06
Blumental 1952		36	0.37	14	0.01	26	0.09	23	0.39	15	0.56	20	0.47
Boshniakovich 1969		41	0.34	11	0.02	19	0.08	25	0.34	33	0.33	28	0.33
Brailowsky 1960		77	0.14	55	0.00	74	0.05	68	0.05	62	0.05	64	0.05
Bunin 1987		22	0.40	23	0.01	23	0.08	19	0.44	13	0.56	15	0.50
Bunin 1987b		21	0.40	53	0.00	24	0.14	20	0.44	14	0.56	13	0.50
Chiu 1999		8	0.52	4	0.07	5	0.17	6	0.63	15	0.65	5	0.64
Cohen 1997		76	0.14	86	0.00	77	0.04	79	0.04	83	0.02	81	0.03
Cortot 1951		78	0.12	59	0.00	78	0.04	78	0.04	71	0.03	83	0.03
Csalog 1996		65	0.22	41	0.00	66	0.07	53	0.07	60	0.05	59	0.06
Czerny 1949		79	0.11	74	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	57	0.05	77	0.04
Czerny 1990		5	0.53	12	0.02	8	0.24	5	0.66	10	0.79	4	0.72
Duchoud 2007		15	0.43	13	0.01	18	0.10	16	0.46	13	0.55	14	0.50
Ezaki 2006		83	0.02	66	0.00	85	0.02	83	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.02
Falvay 1989		43	0.34	68	0.00	51	0.07	51	0.07	28	0.29	47	0.14
Farrell 1958		60	0.28	46	0.00	28	0.07	43	0.12	37	0.25	41	0.17
Ferenczy 1958		85	0.02	52	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	46	0.08	76	0.04
Fliere 1977		27	0.38	34	0.00	34	0.06	26	0.34	45	0.19	37	0.25
Fou 1978		32	0.37	19	0.01	27	0.09	24	0.36	27	0.39	24	0.37
Francois 1956		67	0.21	32	0.00	68	0.05	71	0.05	53	0.06	71	0.05
Friedman 1923		34	0.37	56	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.23	39	0.36	34	0.29
Friedman 1923b		30	0.38	61	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.27	39	0.41	29	0.33
Friedman 1930		11	0.48	29	0.00	10	0.12	8	0.63	12	0.66	6	0.64
Garcia 2007		23	0.40	26	0.00	20	0.09	28	0.32	32	0.37	27	0.34
Garcia 2007b		45	0.33	60	0.00	49	0.08	46	0.08	38	0.28	45	0.15
Gierzod 1998		87	0.00	87	0.00	80	0.04	77	0.04	86	0.02	80	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		75	0.15	62	0.00	73	0.05	70	0.05	79	0.03	79	0.04
Groot 1988		38	0.36	88	0.00	50	0.06	59	0.06	63	0.06	62	0.06
Harasiewicz 1955		17	0.42	8	0.03	9	0.12	22	0.40	23	0.42	22	0.41
Hatto 1993		4	0.55	3	0.10	2	0.21	2	0.77	10	0.69	2	0.73
Hatto 1997		12	0.48	21	0.01	12	0.14	11	0.59	5	0.64	8	0.61
Horowitz 1949		2	0.56	2	0.15	4	0.20	4	0.71	2	0.79	1	0.75
Indjic 1988		3	0.56	5	0.07	3	0.26	3	0.75	9	0.70	3	0.72
Kapell 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Kissin 1993		29	0.38	36	0.00	30	0.08	33	0.27	25	0.52	26	0.37
Kushner 1989		28	0.38	69	0.00	38	0.06	38	0.16	37	0.24	40	0.20
Luisada 1991		18	0.42	24	0.01	21	0.10	18	0.45	25	0.51	16	0.48
Lushtak 2004		58	0.28	80	0.00	59	0.05	64	0.05	60	0.05	69	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		64	0.24	47	0.00	67	0.06	61	0.06	75	0.04	65	0.05
Magaloff 1978		71	0.18	49	0.00	70	0.05	72	0.05	85	0.03	74	0.04
Magin 1975		44	0.33	42	0.00	37	0.06	39	0.15	29	0.48	35	0.27
Michalowski 1933		26	0.39	30	0.00	35	0.06	30	0.28	32	0.36	30	0.32
Milkina 1970		55	0.29	81	0.00	41	0.05	40	0.14	24	0.44	38	0.25
Mohovich 1999		61	0.27	45	0.00	61	0.06	56	0.06	49	0.07	61	0.06
Moravec 1969		46	0.33	75	0.00	56	0.05	67	0.05	51	0.05	63	0.05
Morozova 2008		47	0.32	70	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	47	0.07	53	0.08
Neighaus 1950		51	0.30	48	0.00	58	0.06	58	0.06	60	0.05	70	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		14	0.44	18	0.01	17	0.10	14	0.47	20	0.48	19	0.47
Ohlsson 1999		52	0.30	44	0.00	53	0.08	48	0.08	63	0.04	58	0.06
Osinska 1989		66	0.22	63	0.00	65	0.04	76	0.04	56	0.05	73	0.04
Pachmann 1927		57	0.28	76	0.00	63	0.06	55	0.06	54	0.07	57	0.06
Paderewski 1930		50	0.31	57	0.00	55	0.07	52	0.07	41	0.24	49	0.13
Perlemuter 1992		72	0.18	64	0.00	71	0.05	66	0.05	73	0.04	72	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		37	0.36	82	0.00	47	0.05	73	0.05	31	0.26	50	0.11
Poblocka 1999		48	0.32	71	0.00	46	0.05	69	0.05	30	0.32	48	0.13
Rabcewiczowa 1932		73	0.17	83	0.00	76	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		31	0.37	25	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.12	30	0.36	39	0.21
Rangell 2001		25	0.40	33	0.00	39	0.06	35	0.20	16	0.43	33	0.29
Richter 1976		13	0.47	17	0.01	15	0.12	17	0.45	36	0.51	17	0.48
Rosen 1989		42	0.34	10	0.02	42	0.05	41	0.13	48	0.05	54	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		69	0.20	77	0.00	75	0.06	60	0.06	71	0.04	68	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		88	-0.02	78	0.00	87	0.02	89	0.02	75	0.03	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.00	84	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		81	0.05	65	0.00	89	0.02	82	0.02	91	0.01	91	0.01
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.02	85	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Rossi 2007		90	-0.06	89	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		62	0.26	40	0.00	60	0.06	63	0.06	45	0.10	51	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		33	0.37	9	0.02	22	0.11	21	0.43	16	0.53	18	0.48
Rubinstein 1966		24	0.40	37	0.00	31	0.06	27	0.33	24	0.32	31	0.32
Schilhawsky 1960		56	0.29	67	0.00	52	0.06	54	0.06	25	0.42	43	0.16
Shebanova 2002		6	0.53	6	0.03	6	0.16	7	0.63	23	0.62	7	0.62
Smith 1975		80	0.07	90	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	82	0.03	86	0.02
Sokolov 2002		59	0.28	54	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.10	41	0.20	46	0.14
Sztompka 1959		40	0.34	51	0.00	48	0.06	57	0.06	48	0.08	55	0.07
Tomsic 1995		63	0.25	79	0.00	54	0.08	47	0.08	60	0.05	56	0.06
Uninsky 1932		10	0.48	31	0.00	13	0.16	13	0.49	28	0.40	21	0.44
Uninsky 1971		54	0.30	22	0.01	29	0.09	37	0.17	40	0.16	42	0.16
Wasowski 1980		7	0.52	7	0.03	7	0.17	10	0.59	15	0.61	9	0.60
Zak 1937		19	0.40	20	0.01	32	0.07	29	0.31	25	0.44	25	0.37
Zak 1951		35	0.37	50	0.00	40	0.07	36	0.18	26	0.42	36	0.27
Average		1	0.58	1	0.27	1	0.26	1	0.77	42	0.12	32	0.30
Random 1		91	-0.10	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	89	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		82	0.04	15	0.01	84	0.02	88	0.02	41	0.15	66	0.05
Random 3		89	-0.05	58	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	69	0.03	88	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).