Magin 1975

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		65	0.17	64	0.00	63	0.04	75	0.04	79	0.03	77	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		67	0.17	27	0.00	65	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.04	68	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		2	0.58	4	0.12	4	0.25	4	0.86	14	0.75	4	0.80
Bacha 2000		66	0.17	73	0.00	56	0.05	66	0.05	54	0.06	59	0.05
Badura 1965		56	0.21	43	0.00	61	0.04	77	0.04	82	0.03	78	0.03
Barbosa 1983		48	0.28	69	0.00	44	0.08	45	0.16	47	0.07	45	0.11
Biret 1990		75	0.12	30	0.00	77	0.06	60	0.06	69	0.04	63	0.05
Blet 2003		16	0.46	20	0.00	15	0.15	20	0.61	23	0.54	19	0.57
Block 1995		37	0.34	50	0.00	41	0.09	40	0.26	64	0.05	46	0.11
Blumental 1952		29	0.37	32	0.00	26	0.08	33	0.44	26	0.41	26	0.42
Boshniakovich 1969		36	0.34	23	0.00	38	0.09	42	0.23	53	0.06	44	0.12
Brailowsky 1960		88	-0.03	74	0.00	90	0.02	87	0.02	90	0.02	82	0.02
Bunin 1987		49	0.27	75	0.00	42	0.11	39	0.26	43	0.14	35	0.19
Bunin 1987b		51	0.27	52	0.00	43	0.11	41	0.24	43	0.13	36	0.18
Chiu 1999		26	0.38	76	0.00	32	0.09	27	0.50	43	0.19	30	0.31
Cohen 1997		74	0.12	24	0.00	80	0.04	76	0.04	91	0.01	87	0.02
Cortot 1951		76	0.09	48	0.00	75	0.05	61	0.05	77	0.03	74	0.04
Csalog 1996		41	0.31	28	0.00	51	0.10	47	0.10	48	0.07	51	0.08
Czerny 1949		79	0.05	26	0.00	76	0.05	67	0.05	56	0.05	61	0.05
Czerny 1990		32	0.36	15	0.01	20	0.17	22	0.59	26	0.60	17	0.59
Duchoud 2007		39	0.32	34	0.00	37	0.11	38	0.30	43	0.16	34	0.22
Ezaki 2006		78	0.07	42	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	85	0.02	81	0.02
Falvay 1989		60	0.20	84	0.00	68	0.05	68	0.05	63	0.04	65	0.04
Farrell 1958		81	0.02	77	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.02	84	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		91	-0.18	85	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.02	89	0.01
Fliere 1977		14	0.49	47	0.00	17	0.15	12	0.73	30	0.51	15	0.61
Fou 1978		53	0.24	29	0.00	53	0.10	46	0.10	65	0.04	54	0.06
Francois 1956		63	0.19	37	0.00	72	0.09	48	0.09	62	0.04	58	0.06
Friedman 1923		31	0.36	58	0.00	31	0.13	26	0.50	41	0.32	27	0.40
Friedman 1923b		33	0.35	65	0.00	30	0.07	28	0.48	42	0.31	28	0.39
Friedman 1930		20	0.44	59	0.00	21	0.19	18	0.66	25	0.55	16	0.60
Garcia 2007		72	0.12	78	0.00	67	0.04	72	0.04	76	0.04	71	0.04
Garcia 2007b		25	0.39	19	0.00	29	0.08	34	0.42	27	0.46	25	0.44
Gierzod 1998		73	0.12	70	0.00	58	0.06	58	0.06	56	0.06	56	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		61	0.19	35	0.00	60	0.06	57	0.06	75	0.03	73	0.04
Groot 1988		1	0.60	2	0.13	3	0.20	5	0.84	7	0.71	6	0.77
Harasiewicz 1955		28	0.37	86	0.00	34	0.11	36	0.33	62	0.05	42	0.13
Hatto 1993		4	0.57	10	0.01	2	0.22	1	0.87	6	0.78	3	0.82
Hatto 1997		30	0.36	38	0.00	23	0.10	21	0.60	19	0.44	21	0.51
Horowitz 1949		42	0.29	49	0.00	52	0.08	50	0.08	71	0.04	55	0.06
Indjic 1988		3	0.58	1	0.31	1	0.31	2	0.87	5	0.81	1	0.84
Kapell 1951		38	0.33	66	0.00	27	0.09	29	0.48	39	0.15	32	0.27
Kissin 1993		6	0.54	6	0.05	6	0.22	7	0.82	9	0.77	5	0.79
Kushner 1989		23	0.40	67	0.00	33	0.09	35	0.39	41	0.19	31	0.27
Luisada 1991		15	0.47	18	0.00	16	0.17	11	0.76	15	0.62	11	0.69
Lushtak 2004		64	0.18	87	0.00	71	0.07	54	0.07	64	0.05	57	0.06
Malcuzynski 1961		13	0.49	11	0.01	10	0.23	15	0.70	11	0.59	13	0.64
Magaloff 1978		35	0.34	57	0.00	24	0.09	30	0.46	40	0.26	29	0.35
Magin 1975		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Michalowski 1933		19	0.45	8	0.03	22	0.17	23	0.56	23	0.45	23	0.50
Milkina 1970		69	0.16	53	0.00	69	0.05	65	0.05	65	0.04	67	0.04
Mohovich 1999		68	0.16	79	0.00	70	0.05	62	0.05	71	0.04	72	0.04
Moravec 1969		52	0.27	80	0.00	48	0.08	53	0.08	64	0.04	53	0.06
Morozova 2008		50	0.27	45	0.00	49	0.08	51	0.08	51	0.06	52	0.07
Neighaus 1950		45	0.29	56	0.00	40	0.09	43	0.18	59	0.05	50	0.09
Niedzielski 1931		11	0.50	12	0.01	8	0.18	6	0.82	5	0.70	7	0.76
Ohlsson 1999		12	0.49	16	0.01	12	0.17	14	0.72	16	0.56	14	0.63
Osinska 1989		59	0.20	46	0.00	59	0.07	55	0.07	74	0.03	60	0.05
Pachmann 1927		24	0.39	44	0.00	28	0.10	25	0.51	35	0.42	24	0.46
Paderewski 1930		10	0.51	13	0.01	13	0.19	10	0.78	10	0.70	8	0.74
Perlemuter 1992		21	0.43	36	0.00	25	0.09	24	0.54	29	0.51	20	0.52
Pierdomenico 2008		44	0.29	81	0.00	46	0.08	52	0.08	43	0.13	48	0.10
Poblocka 1999		57	0.21	71	0.00	66	0.04	73	0.04	68	0.05	64	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		82	0.02	88	0.00	86	0.02	83	0.02	88	0.02	83	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		62	0.19	82	0.00	62	0.04	78	0.04	73	0.03	75	0.03
Rangell 2001		85	0.00	68	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02
Richter 1976		5	0.56	5	0.07	5	0.25	3	0.86	13	0.79	2	0.82
Rosen 1989		71	0.13	60	0.00	73	0.04	70	0.04	85	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		83	0.01	89	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		87	-0.03	90	0.00	82	0.02	90	0.02	82	0.02	85	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		89	-0.05	91	0.00	88	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Rosenthal 1931c		77	0.09	83	0.00	74	0.04	69	0.04	82	0.02	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		90	-0.07	51	0.00	87	0.02	81	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Rossi 2007		70	0.14	25	0.00	57	0.05	63	0.05	21	0.33	41	0.13
Rubinstein 1939		54	0.23	61	0.00	54	0.05	64	0.05	69	0.04	66	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		9	0.51	3	0.12	7	0.19	13	0.72	3	0.69	10	0.70
Rubinstein 1966		55	0.22	62	0.00	55	0.06	59	0.06	79	0.03	69	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		58	0.20	63	0.00	64	0.04	74	0.04	62	0.05	70	0.04
Shebanova 2002		8	0.52	7	0.04	9	0.21	8	0.80	24	0.61	9	0.70
Smith 1975		46	0.28	21	0.00	50	0.07	56	0.07	44	0.13	47	0.10
Sokolov 2002		18	0.45	14	0.01	19	0.14	19	0.63	7	0.65	12	0.64
Sztompka 1959		27	0.37	22	0.00	36	0.11	31	0.45	51	0.07	38	0.18
Tomsic 1995		40	0.31	31	0.00	39	0.09	37	0.31	43	0.10	37	0.18
Uninsky 1932		22	0.41	39	0.00	18	0.17	16	0.69	30	0.38	22	0.51
Uninsky 1971		34	0.35	17	0.00	35	0.12	32	0.44	54	0.06	40	0.16
Wasowski 1980		17	0.46	9	0.02	14	0.16	17	0.66	28	0.51	18	0.58
Zak 1937		47	0.28	72	0.00	45	0.08	44	0.16	41	0.16	39	0.16
Zak 1951		43	0.29	33	0.00	47	0.09	49	0.09	39	0.17	43	0.12
Average		7	0.52	54	0.00	11	0.15	9	0.78	49	0.07	33	0.23
Random 1		84	0.00	55	0.00	81	0.02	82	0.02	43	0.12	62	0.05
Random 2		86	-0.02	40	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	68	0.04	76	0.03
Random 3		80	0.05	41	0.00	83	0.02	84	0.02	17	0.40	49	0.09

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).