Malcuzynski 1961

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		41	0.35	34	0.00	54	0.06	53	0.06	40	0.23	47	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		76	0.18	68	0.00	73	0.04	74	0.04	46	0.07	69	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		4	0.52	5	0.04	6	0.23	6	0.66	22	0.63	9	0.64
Bacha 2000		39	0.36	54	0.00	19	0.10	24	0.39	12	0.54	22	0.46
Badura 1965		38	0.36	43	0.00	38	0.05	39	0.19	11	0.56	28	0.33
Barbosa 1983		40	0.35	17	0.01	57	0.05	56	0.05	38	0.19	50	0.10
Biret 1990		89	0.02	87	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	86	0.02	91	0.02
Blet 2003		58	0.30	50	0.00	67	0.07	50	0.07	60	0.06	62	0.06
Block 1995		13	0.47	15	0.01	10	0.21	12	0.59	15	0.58	12	0.58
Blumental 1952		19	0.42	19	0.01	12	0.16	18	0.53	9	0.64	13	0.58
Boshniakovich 1969		12	0.47	38	0.00	15	0.12	13	0.59	22	0.51	16	0.55
Brailowsky 1960		74	0.19	69	0.00	79	0.04	68	0.04	63	0.05	73	0.04
Bunin 1987		24	0.40	75	0.00	34	0.06	29	0.28	27	0.43	27	0.35
Bunin 1987b		27	0.40	39	0.00	35	0.06	30	0.26	29	0.40	30	0.32
Chiu 1999		32	0.38	27	0.00	49	0.04	67	0.04	52	0.07	65	0.05
Cohen 1997		56	0.30	24	0.00	61	0.05	58	0.05	36	0.34	43	0.13
Cortot 1951		71	0.22	59	0.00	51	0.05	59	0.05	32	0.35	45	0.13
Csalog 1996		69	0.22	53	0.00	68	0.05	57	0.05	67	0.05	68	0.05
Czerny 1949		86	0.09	88	0.00	82	0.03	83	0.03	48	0.07	70	0.05
Czerny 1990		59	0.30	89	0.00	62	0.06	55	0.06	55	0.07	64	0.06
Duchoud 2007		79	0.17	36	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	67	0.04	85	0.03
Ezaki 2006		42	0.35	26	0.00	33	0.06	38	0.19	26	0.50	31	0.31
Falvay 1989		73	0.20	70	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.04
Farrell 1958		82	0.12	52	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	75	0.03	89	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		84	0.11	46	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	43	0.25	59	0.07
Fliere 1977		6	0.51	12	0.01	14	0.13	9	0.62	33	0.48	15	0.55
Fou 1978		33	0.38	25	0.00	40	0.05	35	0.20	37	0.23	36	0.21
Francois 1956		81	0.16	90	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	69	0.03	88	0.03
Friedman 1923		25	0.40	20	0.01	39	0.05	36	0.20	45	0.18	39	0.19
Friedman 1923b		29	0.39	77	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	54	0.08	51	0.10
Friedman 1930		17	0.45	18	0.01	23	0.11	17	0.55	28	0.54	18	0.54
Garcia 2007		62	0.28	66	0.00	30	0.06	40	0.17	37	0.25	38	0.21
Garcia 2007b		36	0.37	22	0.01	25	0.11	28	0.28	21	0.54	24	0.39
Gierzod 1998		16	0.46	3	0.10	3	0.14	10	0.60	5	0.77	4	0.68
Gornostaeva 1994		72	0.21	84	0.00	75	0.04	72	0.04	61	0.04	79	0.04
Groot 1988		23	0.41	21	0.01	36	0.06	32	0.22	48	0.08	44	0.13
Harasiewicz 1955		28	0.40	85	0.00	41	0.06	37	0.19	67	0.04	53	0.09
Hatto 1993		31	0.39	80	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.38	43	0.17	34	0.25
Hatto 1997		64	0.27	29	0.00	53	0.08	46	0.08	46	0.07	58	0.07
Horowitz 1949		46	0.33	71	0.00	60	0.07	48	0.07	50	0.07	56	0.07
Indjic 1988		26	0.40	23	0.01	21	0.10	22	0.47	26	0.41	23	0.44
Kapell 1951		67	0.24	35	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.06	66	0.05
Kissin 1993		5	0.51	16	0.01	9	0.14	7	0.66	13	0.74	3	0.70
Kushner 1989		2	0.54	2	0.16	2	0.27	2	0.76	5	0.78	1	0.77
Luisada 1991		37	0.36	67	0.00	58	0.07	51	0.07	59	0.06	61	0.06
Lushtak 2004		11	0.48	10	0.01	11	0.15	8	0.64	2	0.73	5	0.68
Malcuzynski 1961		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Magaloff 1978		9	0.49	4	0.04	4	0.22	3	0.71	8	0.72	2	0.71
Magin 1975		8	0.49	13	0.01	8	0.17	11	0.59	15	0.70	7	0.64
Michalowski 1933		50	0.32	81	0.00	59	0.07	49	0.07	57	0.07	57	0.07
Milkina 1970		85	0.10	61	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	72	0.03	83	0.03
Mohovich 1999		51	0.32	55	0.00	52	0.07	52	0.07	47	0.08	60	0.07
Moravec 1969		47	0.33	33	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	45	0.10	48	0.10
Morozova 2008		22	0.42	7	0.02	16	0.13	23	0.43	26	0.34	25	0.38
Neighaus 1950		61	0.29	62	0.00	65	0.05	61	0.05	76	0.04	80	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		20	0.42	14	0.01	20	0.08	19	0.50	19	0.48	21	0.49
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.39	37	0.00	27	0.07	26	0.34	32	0.28	32	0.31
Osinska 1989		75	0.18	78	0.00	74	0.03	78	0.03	73	0.03	81	0.03
Pachmann 1927		21	0.42	47	0.00	24	0.15	21	0.48	19	0.61	17	0.54
Paderewski 1930		18	0.44	63	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.49	14	0.64	14	0.56
Perlemuter 1992		7	0.49	6	0.03	13	0.10	14	0.58	15	0.64	10	0.61
Pierdomenico 2008		35	0.37	45	0.00	46	0.05	63	0.05	30	0.30	46	0.12
Poblocka 1999		60	0.30	28	0.00	29	0.06	44	0.13	55	0.05	54	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		83	0.12	72	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	64	0.05	82	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		63	0.27	31	0.00	66	0.05	62	0.05	78	0.03	74	0.04
Rangell 2001		70	0.22	73	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	72	0.04	87	0.03
Richter 1976		15	0.46	65	0.00	18	0.15	15	0.58	31	0.61	11	0.59
Rosen 1989		43	0.35	44	0.00	48	0.05	65	0.05	53	0.05	71	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		77	0.18	64	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	75	0.03	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		65	0.26	60	0.00	50	0.05	66	0.05	21	0.58	41	0.17
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.25	56	0.00	63	0.07	47	0.07	29	0.48	40	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		53	0.31	58	0.00	31	0.07	33	0.21	18	0.52	29	0.33
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.17	79	0.00	69	0.04	73	0.04	41	0.21	52	0.09
Rossi 2007		87	0.08	91	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	33	0.22	55	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		78	0.18	86	0.00	77	0.03	77	0.03	59	0.05	77	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		49	0.32	32	0.00	37	0.05	31	0.22	30	0.38	33	0.29
Rubinstein 1966		54	0.31	51	0.00	47	0.05	64	0.05	47	0.07	63	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		55	0.30	49	0.00	56	0.06	54	0.06	21	0.44	42	0.16
Shebanova 2002		3	0.53	11	0.01	7	0.19	5	0.69	26	0.60	8	0.64
Smith 1975		68	0.22	42	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	67	0.04	76	0.04
Sokolov 2002		48	0.33	30	0.00	28	0.07	34	0.20	37	0.23	35	0.21
Sztompka 1959		14	0.46	8	0.02	17	0.12	16	0.57	22	0.50	19	0.53
Tomsic 1995		34	0.38	48	0.00	32	0.06	27	0.31	16	0.40	26	0.35
Uninsky 1932		10	0.48	9	0.01	5	0.20	4	0.71	13	0.60	6	0.65
Uninsky 1971		45	0.33	41	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.15	50	0.07	49	0.10
Wasowski 1980		57	0.30	40	0.00	64	0.04	70	0.04	62	0.05	72	0.04
Zak 1937		52	0.31	76	0.00	55	0.05	60	0.05	53	0.06	67	0.05
Zak 1951		44	0.34	82	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.13	31	0.33	37	0.21
Average		1	0.61	1	0.42	1	0.41	1	0.82	29	0.32	20	0.51
Random 1		90	0.00	74	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	60	0.04	86	0.03
Random 2		88	0.04	57	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	47	0.06	84	0.03
Random 3		91	-0.03	83	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	33	0.16	78	0.04

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).