Schilhawsky 1960

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		52	0.20	83	0.00	70	0.04	73	0.04	76	0.03	76	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		28	0.29	20	0.01	27	0.08	35	0.28	33	0.24	20	0.26
Ashkenazy 1981		18	0.33	60	0.00	23	0.08	18	0.46	56	0.07	22	0.18
Bacha 2000		31	0.28	37	0.00	28	0.07	23	0.43	35	0.24	15	0.32
Badura 1965		50	0.21	14	0.01	42	0.08	40	0.18	45	0.11	32	0.14
Barbosa 1983		4	0.42	36	0.00	8	0.14	4	0.67	14	0.56	3	0.61
Biret 1990		32	0.27	48	0.00	39	0.07	38	0.25	39	0.31	19	0.28
Blet 2003		6	0.42	8	0.03	9	0.15	6	0.63	37	0.37	7	0.48
Block 1995		15	0.34	24	0.00	17	0.15	14	0.51	63	0.05	27	0.16
Blumental 1952		21	0.31	6	0.04	14	0.15	11	0.57	29	0.33	11	0.43
Boshniakovich 1969		9	0.40	3	0.10	4	0.23	3	0.70	27	0.44	6	0.55
Brailowsky 1960		36	0.26	16	0.01	38	0.07	37	0.27	57	0.06	34	0.13
Bunin 1987		30	0.28	21	0.00	30	0.13	26	0.39	37	0.23	17	0.30
Bunin 1987b		29	0.28	26	0.00	29	0.08	27	0.39	37	0.22	18	0.29
Chiu 1999		2	0.43	4	0.05	11	0.14	10	0.61	44	0.15	16	0.30
Cohen 1997		69	0.14	84	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	88	0.02	78	0.03
Cortot 1951		68	0.15	65	0.00	73	0.04	68	0.04	75	0.03	79	0.03
Csalog 1996		40	0.24	61	0.00	51	0.04	72	0.04	70	0.05	56	0.04
Czerny 1949		88	-0.02	88	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01
Czerny 1990		67	0.15	30	0.00	64	0.05	60	0.05	78	0.03	60	0.04
Duchoud 2007		76	0.10	89	0.00	69	0.04	67	0.04	84	0.02	77	0.03
Ezaki 2006		73	0.11	52	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.02	81	0.02
Falvay 1989		81	0.08	46	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	90	0.02	82	0.02
Farrell 1958		87	0.05	74	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.02	85	0.02
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.09	38	0.00	74	0.04	66	0.04	45	0.15	45	0.08
Fliere 1977		16	0.33	54	0.00	32	0.09	30	0.34	63	0.05	33	0.13
Fou 1978		61	0.17	39	0.00	52	0.04	65	0.04	85	0.03	70	0.03
Francois 1956		60	0.18	51	0.00	71	0.04	77	0.04	76	0.03	80	0.03
Friedman 1923		14	0.37	32	0.00	13	0.18	17	0.48	37	0.37	12	0.42
Friedman 1923b		11	0.39	10	0.02	6	0.15	15	0.50	38	0.42	8	0.46
Friedman 1930		7	0.42	2	0.18	2	0.20	7	0.63	32	0.49	5	0.56
Garcia 2007		58	0.18	25	0.00	41	0.07	42	0.17	61	0.05	42	0.09
Garcia 2007b		27	0.29	34	0.00	31	0.10	31	0.30	46	0.09	28	0.16
Gierzod 1998		63	0.17	62	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	57	0.06	47	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		78	0.09	85	0.00	87	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.02	89	0.02
Groot 1988		51	0.20	78	0.00	66	0.06	49	0.06	79	0.03	62	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		5	0.42	12	0.02	16	0.13	13	0.53	76	0.04	29	0.15
Hatto 1993		49	0.21	40	0.00	55	0.05	51	0.05	72	0.04	64	0.04
Hatto 1997		57	0.19	28	0.00	56	0.06	47	0.06	86	0.03	58	0.04
Horowitz 1949		10	0.39	5	0.05	5	0.19	5	0.65	27	0.48	4	0.56
Indjic 1988		47	0.23	55	0.00	43	0.07	41	0.17	65	0.06	40	0.10
Kapell 1951		26	0.29	68	0.00	25	0.07	25	0.42	54	0.06	24	0.16
Kissin 1993		53	0.20	56	0.00	54	0.05	63	0.05	70	0.05	49	0.05
Kushner 1989		39	0.25	44	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.14	70	0.04	46	0.07
Luisada 1991		24	0.30	49	0.00	35	0.09	34	0.28	65	0.05	36	0.12
Lushtak 2004		17	0.33	71	0.00	19	0.08	16	0.48	17	0.42	10	0.45
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.30	29	0.00	22	0.07	21	0.44	54	0.06	25	0.16
Magaloff 1978		33	0.27	50	0.00	40	0.08	39	0.23	64	0.05	38	0.11
Magin 1975		54	0.20	57	0.00	61	0.05	62	0.05	74	0.04	54	0.04
Michalowski 1933		12	0.38	11	0.02	12	0.15	8	0.62	36	0.33	9	0.45
Milkina 1970		75	0.10	22	0.00	76	0.04	70	0.04	80	0.03	71	0.03
Mohovich 1999		48	0.22	43	0.00	18	0.08	43	0.15	64	0.05	43	0.09
Moravec 1969		66	0.15	42	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	88	0.02	67	0.03
Morozova 2008		41	0.24	79	0.00	63	0.04	64	0.04	84	0.03	74	0.03
Neighaus 1950		44	0.23	53	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	89	0.02	63	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		43	0.24	9	0.02	36	0.06	33	0.29	81	0.03	41	0.09
Ohlsson 1999		13	0.37	7	0.03	7	0.12	12	0.54	33	0.22	14	0.34
Osinska 1989		46	0.23	33	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	70	0.04	50	0.04
Pachmann 1927		20	0.33	86	0.00	21	0.08	22	0.44	37	0.31	13	0.37
Paderewski 1930		37	0.26	31	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	55	0.06	44	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		19	0.33	72	0.00	24	0.06	29	0.35	62	0.04	37	0.12
Pierdomenico 2008		71	0.13	80	0.00	65	0.06	50	0.06	80	0.03	53	0.04
Poblocka 1999		22	0.31	17	0.01	20	0.07	20	0.45	48	0.06	23	0.16
Rabcewiczowa 1932		80	0.09	63	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	85	0.02	84	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.20	75	0.00	48	0.05	57	0.05	81	0.03	52	0.04
Rangell 2001		70	0.14	58	0.00	67	0.05	54	0.05	82	0.03	61	0.04
Richter 1976		35	0.26	35	0.00	34	0.09	32	0.30	54	0.06	35	0.13
Rosen 1989		42	0.24	59	0.00	37	0.07	36	0.28	54	0.04	39	0.11
Rosenthal 1930		83	0.07	73	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.06	90	0.00	80	0.04	69	0.04	85	0.02	73	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.08	91	0.00	72	0.04	75	0.04	70	0.04	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		86	0.06	69	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Rosenthal 1931d		74	0.10	64	0.00	49	0.05	55	0.05	46	0.07	48	0.06
Rossi 2007		79	0.09	70	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	46	0.06	51	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		72	0.12	18	0.01	75	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.02	83	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		64	0.16	45	0.00	59	0.05	56	0.05	79	0.03	66	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		59	0.18	76	0.00	58	0.05	52	0.05	82	0.03	57	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Shebanova 2002		25	0.29	15	0.01	15	0.15	19	0.46	50	0.09	21	0.20
Smith 1975		62	0.17	47	0.00	77	0.04	76	0.04	79	0.03	69	0.03
Sokolov 2002		56	0.19	27	0.00	46	0.05	61	0.05	83	0.02	68	0.03
Sztompka 1959		65	0.16	87	0.00	62	0.04	74	0.04	81	0.03	72	0.03
Tomsic 1995		84	0.06	81	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	89	0.02	86	0.02
Uninsky 1932		34	0.27	66	0.00	26	0.08	24	0.42	54	0.06	26	0.16
Uninsky 1971		45	0.23	41	0.00	53	0.05	58	0.05	82	0.03	55	0.04
Wasowski 1980		38	0.26	77	0.00	33	0.09	28	0.37	59	0.05	30	0.14
Zak 1937		8	0.40	13	0.01	3	0.21	2	0.71	10	0.67	2	0.69
Zak 1951		3	0.42	1	0.29	1	0.29	1	0.74	4	0.75	1	0.74
Average		1	0.44	19	0.01	10	0.16	9	0.62	85	0.03	31	0.14
Random 1		89	-0.04	67	0.00	88	0.01	89	0.01	70	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.05	23	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	64	0.04	75	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.05	82	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	34	0.16	59	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).