Pachmann 1927

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		61	0.24	45	0.00	67	0.07	52	0.07	81	0.03	67	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		82	0.10	74	0.00	72	0.04	77	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.41	42	0.00	20	0.10	18	0.62	41	0.22	32	0.37
Bacha 2000		60	0.24	33	0.00	52	0.06	57	0.06	43	0.13	46	0.09
Badura 1965		49	0.31	65	0.00	39	0.08	41	0.24	15	0.52	35	0.35
Barbosa 1983		58	0.26	19	0.01	49	0.06	63	0.06	67	0.05	66	0.05
Biret 1990		77	0.16	56	0.00	76	0.06	59	0.06	61	0.04	69	0.05
Blet 2003		42	0.33	46	0.00	46	0.09	46	0.09	61	0.06	53	0.07
Block 1995		8	0.55	12	0.01	9	0.23	9	0.80	8	0.71	7	0.75
Blumental 1952		75	0.16	63	0.00	73	0.05	66	0.05	77	0.03	73	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		9	0.53	6	0.04	8	0.25	8	0.83	8	0.68	8	0.75
Brailowsky 1960		47	0.31	28	0.00	50	0.06	60	0.06	36	0.34	43	0.14
Bunin 1987		37	0.35	20	0.01	28	0.08	29	0.47	23	0.44	28	0.45
Bunin 1987b		38	0.35	39	0.00	29	0.13	31	0.46	23	0.42	29	0.44
Chiu 1999		16	0.46	23	0.00	14	0.16	11	0.72	22	0.55	14	0.63
Cohen 1997		46	0.31	53	0.00	59	0.06	65	0.06	52	0.06	57	0.06
Cortot 1951		41	0.34	40	0.00	51	0.06	62	0.06	34	0.34	44	0.14
Csalog 1996		21	0.45	49	0.00	24	0.12	21	0.54	12	0.58	17	0.56
Czerny 1949		89	-0.02	66	0.00	90	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02
Czerny 1990		71	0.19	41	0.00	66	0.06	58	0.06	60	0.06	58	0.06
Duchoud 2007		55	0.28	78	0.00	57	0.07	50	0.07	54	0.06	56	0.06
Ezaki 2006		67	0.21	57	0.00	70	0.06	56	0.06	58	0.05	62	0.05
Falvay 1989		74	0.17	35	0.00	63	0.05	69	0.05	69	0.03	70	0.04
Farrell 1958		73	0.18	84	0.00	69	0.08	47	0.08	47	0.07	52	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		87	0.01	86	0.00	87	0.01	89	0.01	81	0.03	86	0.02
Fliere 1977		2	0.61	2	0.17	3	0.21	2	0.85	11	0.78	3	0.81
Fou 1978		51	0.30	5	0.04	25	0.08	39	0.29	38	0.23	37	0.26
Francois 1956		78	0.15	88	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	82	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923		3	0.61	11	0.01	2	0.39	4	0.84	6	0.78	5	0.81
Friedman 1923b		1	0.61	1	0.44	1	0.43	3	0.85	5	0.80	2	0.82
Friedman 1930		13	0.49	29	0.00	13	0.16	13	0.70	15	0.63	12	0.66
Garcia 2007		34	0.36	75	0.00	31	0.10	25	0.51	29	0.39	27	0.45
Garcia 2007b		66	0.23	26	0.00	55	0.05	67	0.05	50	0.07	61	0.06
Gierzod 1998		63	0.23	34	0.00	56	0.05	70	0.05	43	0.15	48	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		70	0.19	69	0.00	78	0.04	78	0.04	76	0.03	83	0.03
Groot 1988		23	0.42	24	0.00	35	0.09	32	0.46	52	0.07	41	0.18
Harasiewicz 1955		22	0.44	70	0.00	33	0.09	27	0.48	42	0.14	38	0.26
Hatto 1993		40	0.34	79	0.00	40	0.09	38	0.29	48	0.12	40	0.19
Hatto 1997		79	0.11	76	0.00	77	0.04	75	0.04	80	0.03	80	0.03
Horowitz 1949		33	0.37	47	0.00	37	0.09	36	0.36	34	0.37	33	0.36
Indjic 1988		53	0.28	85	0.00	48	0.07	53	0.07	47	0.10	51	0.08
Kapell 1951		52	0.28	71	0.00	58	0.07	54	0.07	55	0.06	55	0.06
Kissin 1993		35	0.36	22	0.00	34	0.08	33	0.45	32	0.46	26	0.45
Kushner 1989		39	0.34	16	0.01	43	0.08	42	0.19	49	0.07	45	0.12
Luisada 1991		36	0.36	58	0.00	47	0.07	49	0.07	58	0.06	54	0.06
Lushtak 2004		57	0.26	77	0.00	62	0.05	73	0.05	65	0.05	68	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		24	0.42	59	0.00	21	0.10	19	0.61	21	0.48	18	0.54
Magaloff 1978		6	0.59	3	0.06	5	0.21	1	0.85	3	0.79	1	0.82
Magin 1975		31	0.39	60	0.00	36	0.09	35	0.42	25	0.51	24	0.46
Michalowski 1933		20	0.45	30	0.00	22	0.09	28	0.48	24	0.43	25	0.45
Milkina 1970		86	0.01	25	0.00	86	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	85	0.02
Mohovich 1999		32	0.37	50	0.00	41	0.10	40	0.25	37	0.23	39	0.24
Moravec 1969		72	0.19	80	0.00	71	0.04	76	0.04	84	0.03	75	0.03
Morozova 2008		44	0.32	64	0.00	44	0.08	43	0.15	66	0.05	47	0.09
Neighaus 1950		27	0.41	61	0.00	26	0.08	20	0.55	42	0.15	36	0.29
Niedzielski 1931		18	0.45	21	0.00	16	0.17	17	0.64	14	0.57	15	0.60
Ohlsson 1999		11	0.50	9	0.02	10	0.20	10	0.73	11	0.61	11	0.67
Osinska 1989		19	0.45	18	0.01	30	0.08	30	0.47	20	0.55	21	0.51
Pachmann 1927		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Paderewski 1930		15	0.46	17	0.01	17	0.14	14	0.70	12	0.65	10	0.67
Perlemuter 1992		17	0.46	72	0.00	27	0.08	23	0.53	27	0.54	19	0.53
Pierdomenico 2008		14	0.48	13	0.01	15	0.19	12	0.72	3	0.72	9	0.72
Poblocka 1999		45	0.31	62	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	64	0.05	49	0.08
Rabcewiczowa 1932		76	0.16	51	0.00	80	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03	77	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		59	0.26	87	0.00	64	0.05	68	0.05	54	0.05	63	0.05
Rangell 2001		50	0.30	67	0.00	53	0.07	51	0.07	64	0.05	59	0.06
Richter 1976		4	0.60	4	0.04	6	0.24	6	0.83	9	0.80	4	0.81
Rosen 1989		10	0.52	10	0.01	12	0.17	15	0.69	13	0.62	13	0.65
Rosenthal 1930		81	0.11	81	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.05	43	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.03	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		84	0.05	89	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.21	52	0.00	68	0.07	48	0.07	56	0.05	60	0.06
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.02	90	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	81	0.03	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		54	0.28	55	0.00	54	0.06	64	0.06	12	0.50	42	0.17
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.11	48	0.00	79	0.04	79	0.04	81	0.03	76	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		56	0.27	73	0.00	61	0.05	71	0.05	66	0.04	74	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		68	0.21	68	0.00	74	0.05	74	0.05	81	0.03	72	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		43	0.33	44	0.00	38	0.11	37	0.31	22	0.44	31	0.37
Shebanova 2002		7	0.57	8	0.02	4	0.21	7	0.83	12	0.74	6	0.78
Smith 1975		64	0.23	27	0.00	75	0.06	61	0.06	58	0.05	64	0.05
Sokolov 2002		48	0.31	31	0.00	42	0.07	44	0.15	49	0.04	50	0.08
Sztompka 1959		26	0.41	32	0.00	32	0.10	22	0.53	41	0.23	34	0.35
Tomsic 1995		62	0.23	91	0.00	65	0.07	55	0.07	74	0.03	65	0.05
Uninsky 1932		12	0.49	14	0.01	11	0.26	16	0.68	17	0.51	16	0.59
Uninsky 1971		65	0.23	38	0.00	60	0.05	72	0.05	85	0.02	78	0.03
Wasowski 1980		29	0.40	37	0.00	19	0.10	26	0.50	34	0.42	23	0.46
Zak 1937		28	0.40	15	0.01	18	0.10	24	0.52	15	0.53	20	0.52
Zak 1951		30	0.39	36	0.00	23	0.09	34	0.44	16	0.52	22	0.48
Average		5	0.60	7	0.03	7	0.37	5	0.84	35	0.20	30	0.41
Random 1		90	-0.06	54	0.00	89	0.01	90	0.01	77	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.10	82	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.02	91	0.01
Random 3		88	0.00	83	0.00	88	0.01	88	0.01	41	0.12	82	0.03

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).