Richter 1976

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		77	0.19	81	0.00	77	0.04	72	0.04	84	0.03	81	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		70	0.22	69	0.00	70	0.04	80	0.04	64	0.04	73	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		7	0.59	8	0.01	6	0.21	4	0.83	10	0.80	8	0.81
Bacha 2000		73	0.21	67	0.00	67	0.06	59	0.06	68	0.04	59	0.05
Badura 1965		64	0.26	82	0.00	56	0.04	79	0.04	51	0.05	74	0.04
Barbosa 1983		49	0.34	48	0.00	47	0.09	48	0.09	45	0.10	51	0.09
Biret 1990		79	0.14	32	0.00	80	0.04	81	0.04	72	0.04	76	0.04
Blet 2003		40	0.40	53	0.00	45	0.16	44	0.30	39	0.33	44	0.31
Block 1995		20	0.54	40	0.00	22	0.10	22	0.72	11	0.65	23	0.68
Blumental 1952		59	0.28	70	0.00	58	0.05	67	0.05	61	0.05	66	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		26	0.49	45	0.00	28	0.15	24	0.71	11	0.63	26	0.67
Brailowsky 1960		78	0.17	41	0.00	75	0.06	53	0.06	66	0.05	61	0.05
Bunin 1987		53	0.33	59	0.00	35	0.11	39	0.40	26	0.43	39	0.41
Bunin 1987b		55	0.33	73	0.00	38	0.10	40	0.39	24	0.41	41	0.40
Chiu 1999		4	0.62	19	0.00	13	0.17	7	0.82	4	0.76	9	0.79
Cohen 1997		66	0.25	49	0.00	78	0.04	78	0.04	81	0.02	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		65	0.25	83	0.00	74	0.05	61	0.05	58	0.05	68	0.05
Csalog 1996		36	0.45	44	0.00	39	0.12	38	0.43	13	0.57	35	0.50
Czerny 1949		86	0.01	84	0.00	88	0.02	90	0.02	85	0.02	85	0.02
Czerny 1990		18	0.55	9	0.01	7	0.22	6	0.82	4	0.86	3	0.84
Duchoud 2007		34	0.47	26	0.00	26	0.12	23	0.71	5	0.70	20	0.70
Ezaki 2006		80	0.14	85	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	86	0.02	77	0.03
Falvay 1989		68	0.22	38	0.00	64	0.06	58	0.06	70	0.03	71	0.04
Farrell 1958		71	0.22	50	0.00	69	0.05	65	0.05	46	0.07	54	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		91	-0.12	74	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01
Fliere 1977		1	0.71	1	0.44	1	0.43	2	0.89	2	0.86	1	0.87
Fou 1978		32	0.47	25	0.00	34	0.11	32	0.58	12	0.55	34	0.56
Francois 1956		82	0.11	51	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	81	0.02	90	0.02
Friedman 1923		11	0.58	16	0.01	10	0.13	11	0.80	5	0.79	12	0.79
Friedman 1923b		12	0.58	27	0.00	11	0.13	12	0.79	6	0.80	11	0.79
Friedman 1930		5	0.61	3	0.05	4	0.24	8	0.81	4	0.83	5	0.82
Garcia 2007		37	0.45	86	0.00	23	0.12	27	0.66	3	0.69	25	0.67
Garcia 2007b		48	0.34	10	0.01	43	0.12	43	0.32	24	0.52	40	0.41
Gierzod 1998		76	0.19	57	0.00	65	0.06	57	0.06	65	0.05	64	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		61	0.28	28	0.00	66	0.05	62	0.05	66	0.04	75	0.04
Groot 1988		21	0.52	20	0.00	25	0.12	25	0.69	14	0.53	30	0.60
Harasiewicz 1955		33	0.47	33	0.00	44	0.13	45	0.28	47	0.07	45	0.14
Hatto 1993		14	0.56	54	0.00	17	0.17	15	0.78	8	0.70	16	0.74
Hatto 1997		57	0.30	87	0.00	60	0.05	68	0.05	57	0.05	63	0.05
Horowitz 1949		27	0.48	46	0.00	27	0.14	28	0.66	10	0.72	21	0.69
Indjic 1988		24	0.50	75	0.00	24	0.11	20	0.75	15	0.63	22	0.69
Kapell 1951		31	0.47	31	0.00	30	0.12	36	0.51	17	0.45	37	0.48
Kissin 1993		23	0.50	14	0.01	21	0.16	18	0.76	8	0.78	13	0.77
Kushner 1989		8	0.59	15	0.01	14	0.22	10	0.80	4	0.79	10	0.79
Luisada 1991		39	0.41	12	0.01	42	0.11	41	0.39	36	0.28	43	0.33
Lushtak 2004		54	0.33	71	0.00	59	0.05	69	0.05	55	0.05	65	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		35	0.46	76	0.00	33	0.13	31	0.61	15	0.58	31	0.59
Magaloff 1978		19	0.54	47	0.00	18	0.14	19	0.75	10	0.72	18	0.73
Magin 1975		13	0.56	5	0.03	9	0.13	13	0.79	3	0.86	4	0.82
Michalowski 1933		38	0.45	11	0.01	40	0.12	35	0.52	20	0.47	36	0.49
Milkina 1970		83	0.08	29	0.00	76	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.04	72	0.04
Mohovich 1999		52	0.33	39	0.00	57	0.04	70	0.04	55	0.06	67	0.05
Moravec 1969		45	0.35	88	0.00	49	0.07	51	0.07	47	0.05	53	0.06
Morozova 2008		28	0.48	23	0.00	19	0.13	26	0.68	8	0.62	28	0.65
Neighaus 1950		42	0.38	42	0.00	46	0.10	46	0.10	58	0.05	52	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		9	0.59	4	0.05	5	0.27	5	0.83	3	0.79	6	0.81
Ohlsson 1999		17	0.55	18	0.00	16	0.17	21	0.73	3	0.69	19	0.71
Osinska 1989		46	0.34	22	0.00	55	0.05	64	0.05	53	0.06	60	0.05
Pachmann 1927		6	0.60	17	0.00	8	0.12	9	0.80	6	0.83	7	0.81
Paderewski 1930		29	0.48	35	0.00	32	0.12	29	0.65	11	0.65	27	0.65
Perlemuter 1992		30	0.48	52	0.00	31	0.11	33	0.55	17	0.62	32	0.58
Pierdomenico 2008		25	0.49	30	0.00	37	0.13	34	0.53	8	0.63	33	0.58
Poblocka 1999		41	0.40	34	0.00	36	0.10	37	0.48	15	0.45	38	0.46
Rabcewiczowa 1932		81	0.13	56	0.00	85	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.02	84	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		43	0.37	55	0.00	41	0.09	42	0.36	27	0.41	42	0.38
Rangell 2001		60	0.28	21	0.00	63	0.05	63	0.05	46	0.07	58	0.06
Richter 1976		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Rosen 1989		22	0.52	24	0.00	29	0.14	30	0.64	14	0.60	29	0.62
Rosenthal 1930		67	0.23	89	0.00	72	0.04	73	0.04	77	0.03	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		84	0.08	60	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	78	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		85	0.06	63	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	80	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.22	61	0.00	73	0.06	56	0.06	62	0.04	69	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		88	0.00	72	0.00	86	0.03	84	0.03	88	0.02	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		72	0.21	90	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	19	0.39	47	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		63	0.26	68	0.00	50	0.07	52	0.07	38	0.13	48	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		47	0.34	64	0.00	54	0.08	50	0.08	41	0.13	49	0.10
Rubinstein 1966		44	0.36	43	0.00	51	0.08	49	0.08	54	0.05	56	0.06
Schilhawsky 1960		62	0.26	62	0.00	52	0.06	54	0.06	32	0.30	46	0.13
Shebanova 2002		3	0.68	2	0.27	2	0.47	1	0.89	5	0.85	2	0.87
Smith 1975		75	0.20	65	0.00	82	0.04	77	0.04	77	0.03	78	0.03
Sokolov 2002		58	0.28	36	0.00	62	0.05	66	0.05	71	0.03	70	0.04
Sztompka 1959		10	0.58	13	0.01	15	0.22	16	0.77	8	0.75	14	0.76
Tomsic 1995		51	0.34	58	0.00	48	0.10	47	0.10	45	0.09	50	0.09
Uninsky 1932		15	0.56	7	0.02	12	0.18	14	0.79	6	0.73	15	0.76
Uninsky 1971		74	0.21	77	0.00	71	0.04	76	0.04	86	0.02	79	0.03
Wasowski 1980		16	0.55	37	0.00	20	0.14	17	0.76	7	0.71	17	0.73
Zak 1937		50	0.34	78	0.00	53	0.06	55	0.06	47	0.07	55	0.06
Zak 1951		56	0.32	66	0.00	61	0.06	60	0.06	60	0.05	62	0.05
Average		2	0.69	6	0.02	3	0.33	3	0.87	14	0.52	24	0.67
Random 1		90	-0.06	91	0.00	90	0.02	87	0.02	81	0.02	87	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.04	79	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	82	0.02	86	0.02
Random 3		87	0.01	80	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	31	0.17	57	0.06

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).