Milkina 1970

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		6	0.41	22	0.00	10	0.12	8	0.65	15	0.55	10	0.60
Anderszewski 2003		16	0.35	18	0.00	23	0.10	19	0.50	19	0.51	14	0.50
Ashkenazy 1981		43	0.23	58	0.00	50	0.06	54	0.06	61	0.06	52	0.06
Bacha 2000		25	0.29	48	0.00	40	0.09	31	0.35	33	0.26	26	0.30
Badura 1965		53	0.17	49	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	63	0.04	79	0.03
Barbosa 1983		27	0.28	28	0.00	42	0.11	36	0.29	46	0.07	37	0.14
Biret 1990		14	0.37	24	0.00	14	0.15	11	0.64	8	0.71	7	0.67
Blet 2003		60	0.16	36	0.00	73	0.03	73	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03
Block 1995		77	0.08	66	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	77	0.04	70	0.04
Blumental 1952		39	0.24	40	0.00	49	0.08	49	0.08	67	0.04	51	0.06
Boshniakovich 1969		84	0.01	67	0.00	69	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03	81	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		65	0.13	71	0.00	74	0.03	70	0.03	71	0.04	71	0.03
Bunin 1987		78	0.08	53	0.00	82	0.02	89	0.02	81	0.03	88	0.02
Bunin 1987b		76	0.08	29	0.00	83	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.03
Chiu 1999		19	0.32	38	0.00	37	0.06	27	0.39	63	0.05	36	0.14
Cohen 1997		34	0.25	14	0.01	17	0.09	23	0.44	26	0.45	18	0.44
Cortot 1951		52	0.17	68	0.00	60	0.07	50	0.07	57	0.05	53	0.06
Csalog 1996		72	0.10	72	0.00	65	0.03	69	0.03	66	0.05	68	0.04
Czerny 1949		3	0.47	3	0.08	3	0.36	3	0.76	9	0.81	1	0.78
Czerny 1990		47	0.21	78	0.00	59	0.06	52	0.06	63	0.05	60	0.05
Duchoud 2007		20	0.31	69	0.00	29	0.08	28	0.39	46	0.08	31	0.18
Ezaki 2006		40	0.23	34	0.00	34	0.08	42	0.18	48	0.08	42	0.12
Falvay 1989		2	0.50	1	0.26	1	0.26	2	0.78	2	0.64	3	0.71
Farrell 1958		31	0.26	26	0.00	36	0.06	41	0.22	45	0.10	35	0.15
Ferenczy 1958		15	0.36	41	0.00	21	0.12	16	0.54	5	0.83	6	0.67
Fliere 1977		81	0.04	59	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	86	0.03	83	0.02
Fou 1978		28	0.28	73	0.00	43	0.09	39	0.23	61	0.04	45	0.10
Francois 1956		11	0.39	16	0.01	9	0.13	10	0.65	8	0.73	4	0.69
Friedman 1923		89	0.00	79	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	77	0.03	90	0.02
Friedman 1923b		87	0.00	85	0.00	88	0.02	84	0.02	86	0.03	89	0.02
Friedman 1930		86	0.00	86	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.02
Garcia 2007		79	0.07	20	0.00	53	0.04	62	0.04	55	0.06	59	0.05
Garcia 2007b		74	0.09	27	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	68	0.04	82	0.03
Gierzod 1998		73	0.10	74	0.00	76	0.05	58	0.05	72	0.04	69	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		29	0.27	54	0.00	26	0.13	22	0.46	24	0.53	15	0.49
Groot 1988		37	0.24	70	0.00	32	0.07	34	0.34	62	0.06	39	0.14
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.40	4	0.08	4	0.14	9	0.65	15	0.50	12	0.57
Hatto 1993		8	0.40	10	0.01	12	0.13	13	0.60	35	0.26	21	0.39
Hatto 1997		4	0.43	5	0.07	7	0.18	7	0.65	12	0.52	11	0.58
Horowitz 1949		50	0.18	46	0.00	51	0.06	51	0.06	75	0.04	56	0.05
Indjic 1988		12	0.38	12	0.01	13	0.13	14	0.57	40	0.21	24	0.35
Kapell 1951		24	0.29	42	0.00	16	0.09	24	0.44	40	0.14	30	0.25
Kissin 1993		62	0.13	80	0.00	66	0.04	63	0.04	61	0.06	57	0.05
Kushner 1989		46	0.21	75	0.00	54	0.05	61	0.05	78	0.04	65	0.04
Luisada 1991		44	0.22	81	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.25	60	0.05	44	0.11
Lushtak 2004		80	0.07	87	0.00	80	0.03	82	0.03	88	0.02	87	0.02
Malcuzynski 1961		71	0.10	50	0.00	78	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03	75	0.03
Magaloff 1978		82	0.03	62	0.00	71	0.03	71	0.03	87	0.03	72	0.03
Magin 1975		58	0.16	39	0.00	62	0.04	65	0.04	65	0.05	64	0.04
Michalowski 1933		59	0.16	13	0.01	41	0.10	40	0.22	51	0.07	43	0.12
Milkina 1970		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Mohovich 1999		35	0.25	30	0.00	28	0.10	26	0.41	43	0.18	28	0.27
Moravec 1969		7	0.40	43	0.00	6	0.20	5	0.70	8	0.65	5	0.67
Morozova 2008		26	0.28	21	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.17	53	0.06	46	0.10
Neighaus 1950		18	0.32	9	0.02	15	0.19	12	0.62	33	0.29	19	0.42
Niedzielski 1931		54	0.17	51	0.00	52	0.05	60	0.05	82	0.03	63	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		32	0.25	63	0.00	45	0.07	45	0.14	58	0.05	47	0.08
Osinska 1989		42	0.23	7	0.04	19	0.10	20	0.48	31	0.42	17	0.45
Pachmann 1927		83	0.01	44	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	81	0.03	85	0.02
Paderewski 1930		69	0.11	55	0.00	70	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		85	0.01	88	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.02
Pierdomenico 2008		68	0.11	6	0.04	27	0.11	35	0.30	34	0.25	27	0.27
Poblocka 1999		67	0.11	82	0.00	75	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.04	61	0.04
Rabcewiczowa 1932		21	0.31	17	0.01	18	0.10	15	0.57	17	0.68	8	0.62
Rachmaninoff 1923		49	0.19	83	0.00	58	0.06	53	0.06	55	0.05	55	0.05
Rangell 2001		33	0.25	45	0.00	24	0.09	25	0.43	31	0.27	25	0.34
Richter 1976		75	0.08	35	0.00	79	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.04
Rosen 1989		57	0.16	89	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	88	0.02	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		45	0.21	64	0.00	46	0.09	46	0.09	56	0.05	48	0.07
Rosenthal 1931		38	0.24	52	0.00	33	0.07	37	0.27	32	0.47	23	0.36
Rosenthal 1931b		48	0.20	84	0.00	47	0.08	47	0.08	36	0.39	32	0.18
Rosenthal 1931c		56	0.16	60	0.00	48	0.08	48	0.08	64	0.04	54	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		51	0.17	33	0.00	31	0.06	44	0.16	28	0.41	29	0.26
Rossi 2007		90	-0.05	61	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	57	0.05	62	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		1	0.52	2	0.25	2	0.42	1	0.79	1	0.75	2	0.77
Rubinstein 1952		22	0.30	31	0.00	25	0.11	18	0.51	26	0.41	16	0.46
Rubinstein 1966		5	0.42	8	0.03	5	0.16	4	0.72	6	0.53	9	0.62
Schilhawsky 1960		70	0.10	15	0.01	84	0.03	80	0.03	70	0.04	78	0.03
Shebanova 2002		63	0.13	56	0.00	64	0.04	68	0.04	65	0.06	58	0.05
Smith 1975		23	0.30	23	0.00	20	0.09	29	0.39	27	0.43	20	0.41
Sokolov 2002		17	0.33	47	0.00	22	0.09	17	0.53	14	0.51	13	0.52
Sztompka 1959		61	0.15	57	0.00	56	0.05	56	0.05	74	0.04	67	0.04
Tomsic 1995		41	0.23	76	0.00	30	0.06	32	0.34	52	0.05	40	0.13
Uninsky 1932		30	0.27	25	0.00	35	0.06	33	0.34	67	0.05	41	0.13
Uninsky 1971		13	0.38	11	0.01	11	0.12	21	0.46	30	0.28	22	0.36
Wasowski 1980		36	0.25	90	0.00	38	0.08	30	0.37	52	0.06	34	0.15
Zak 1937		64	0.13	91	0.00	67	0.03	74	0.03	71	0.04	73	0.03
Zak 1951		55	0.16	65	0.00	61	0.06	55	0.06	46	0.07	50	0.06
Average		10	0.40	19	0.00	8	0.18	6	0.68	77	0.04	33	0.16
Random 1		88	0.00	37	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	35	0.22	49	0.07
Random 2		66	0.12	32	0.00	63	0.04	67	0.04	5	0.51	38	0.14
Random 3		91	-0.10	77	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	81	0.02	91	0.01

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).