Smith 1975

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		18	0.38	58	0.00	25	0.08	18	0.50	43	0.17	26	0.29
Anderszewski 2003		49	0.24	41	0.00	40	0.08	40	0.20	36	0.21	29	0.20
Ashkenazy 1981		75	0.14	83	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	84	0.03	78	0.03
Bacha 2000		60	0.21	13	0.00	41	0.08	41	0.15	58	0.05	46	0.09
Badura 1965		69	0.17	62	0.00	69	0.04	69	0.04	77	0.03	77	0.03
Barbosa 1983		59	0.21	55	0.00	61	0.05	66	0.05	76	0.04	66	0.04
Biret 1990		14	0.41	10	0.01	14	0.16	20	0.49	21	0.56	12	0.52
Blet 2003		37	0.28	68	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	64	0.05	59	0.05
Block 1995		32	0.29	57	0.00	36	0.08	34	0.34	53	0.06	38	0.14
Blumental 1952		67	0.18	23	0.00	50	0.05	63	0.05	65	0.05	60	0.05
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.20	37	0.00	55	0.06	53	0.06	81	0.03	68	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		44	0.25	59	0.00	53	0.08	46	0.08	49	0.08	48	0.08
Bunin 1987		88	0.06	72	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.02
Bunin 1987b		87	0.06	63	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	87	0.02	83	0.02
Chiu 1999		45	0.25	84	0.00	80	0.03	73	0.03	86	0.02	80	0.02
Cohen 1997		1	0.58	1	0.23	1	0.23	1	0.87	1	0.83	1	0.85
Cortot 1951		10	0.46	5	0.10	4	0.26	6	0.77	2	0.78	6	0.77
Csalog 1996		65	0.19	79	0.00	82	0.03	81	0.03	71	0.04	73	0.03
Czerny 1949		4	0.56	2	0.20	3	0.31	4	0.81	1	0.87	2	0.84
Czerny 1990		79	0.11	80	0.00	77	0.03	75	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03
Duchoud 2007		40	0.26	28	0.00	42	0.06	43	0.14	75	0.04	50	0.07
Ezaki 2006		3	0.56	3	0.16	2	0.26	2	0.82	1	0.81	3	0.81
Falvay 1989		24	0.32	64	0.00	22	0.12	24	0.44	24	0.35	23	0.39
Farrell 1958		35	0.28	25	0.00	37	0.06	38	0.23	52	0.06	40	0.12
Ferenczy 1958		26	0.31	31	0.00	11	0.15	12	0.61	12	0.78	8	0.69
Fliere 1977		36	0.28	14	0.00	60	0.04	68	0.04	56	0.05	62	0.04
Fou 1978		64	0.20	53	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	53	0.05	56	0.05
Francois 1956		6	0.50	9	0.01	7	0.27	5	0.80	2	0.81	4	0.80
Friedman 1923		77	0.12	38	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	86	0.03	89	0.02
Friedman 1923b		78	0.11	69	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	87	0.03	88	0.02
Friedman 1930		51	0.23	54	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	82	0.03	76	0.03
Garcia 2007		90	0.03	65	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	87	0.02	86	0.02
Garcia 2007b		82	0.07	81	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	86	0.02	91	0.01
Gierzod 1998		56	0.22	48	0.00	26	0.07	29	0.40	30	0.40	22	0.40
Gornostaeva 1994		2	0.57	6	0.03	5	0.34	3	0.82	7	0.77	5	0.79
Groot 1988		19	0.38	43	0.00	24	0.08	22	0.46	53	0.07	31	0.18
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.43	8	0.02	12	0.16	13	0.61	28	0.32	16	0.44
Hatto 1993		47	0.24	73	0.00	57	0.06	49	0.06	73	0.04	61	0.05
Hatto 1997		16	0.40	33	0.00	16	0.11	19	0.50	27	0.29	25	0.38
Horowitz 1949		85	0.06	42	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	86	0.02	84	0.02
Indjic 1988		63	0.20	60	0.00	62	0.05	61	0.05	75	0.04	65	0.04
Kapell 1951		83	0.07	85	0.00	83	0.03	82	0.03	85	0.02	81	0.02
Kissin 1993		74	0.15	34	0.00	48	0.06	55	0.06	62	0.06	51	0.06
Kushner 1989		57	0.21	70	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	82	0.03	69	0.03
Luisada 1991		46	0.25	11	0.01	64	0.06	54	0.06	75	0.04	52	0.05
Lushtak 2004		34	0.28	30	0.00	39	0.08	37	0.23	43	0.10	35	0.15
Malcuzynski 1961		53	0.22	32	0.00	49	0.04	67	0.04	69	0.04	64	0.04
Magaloff 1978		21	0.34	66	0.00	31	0.12	31	0.37	49	0.06	33	0.15
Magin 1975		33	0.28	36	0.00	43	0.06	44	0.13	56	0.07	44	0.10
Michalowski 1933		72	0.15	71	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.03
Milkina 1970		28	0.30	35	0.00	19	0.12	27	0.43	29	0.39	19	0.41
Mohovich 1999		39	0.27	61	0.00	35	0.08	35	0.33	52	0.06	39	0.14
Moravec 1969		41	0.26	46	0.00	27	0.07	25	0.44	43	0.12	28	0.23
Morozova 2008		52	0.22	50	0.00	67	0.05	60	0.05	88	0.02	75	0.03
Neighaus 1950		9	0.48	4	0.11	6	0.27	10	0.69	7	0.54	11	0.61
Niedzielski 1931		89	0.05	49	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	88	0.02	90	0.01
Ohlsson 1999		15	0.40	45	0.00	21	0.12	21	0.48	69	0.04	37	0.14
Osinska 1989		11	0.44	15	0.00	10	0.20	11	0.62	15	0.61	10	0.61
Pachmann 1927		50	0.23	74	0.00	59	0.05	58	0.05	61	0.06	57	0.05
Paderewski 1930		54	0.22	39	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	47	0.07	49	0.07
Perlemuter 1992		29	0.29	40	0.00	52	0.06	48	0.06	58	0.05	53	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		42	0.26	75	0.00	56	0.06	52	0.06	60	0.05	55	0.05
Poblocka 1999		48	0.24	51	0.00	63	0.06	51	0.06	81	0.04	54	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		5	0.51	16	0.00	8	0.18	9	0.70	6	0.77	7	0.73
Rachmaninoff 1923		73	0.15	86	0.00	68	0.05	64	0.05	84	0.03	63	0.04
Rangell 2001		68	0.17	87	0.00	34	0.07	36	0.24	54	0.05	43	0.11
Richter 1976		61	0.20	76	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	77	0.04	71	0.03
Rosen 1989		22	0.33	82	0.00	32	0.08	26	0.44	49	0.05	36	0.15
Rosenthal 1930		25	0.32	77	0.00	33	0.10	28	0.41	34	0.38	24	0.39
Rosenthal 1931		55	0.22	27	0.00	28	0.08	32	0.36	29	0.51	17	0.43
Rosenthal 1931b		66	0.18	18	0.00	30	0.12	33	0.35	28	0.49	21	0.41
Rosenthal 1931c		30	0.29	19	0.00	23	0.11	17	0.50	20	0.50	14	0.50
Rosenthal 1931d		71	0.17	24	0.00	29	0.10	30	0.38	19	0.49	18	0.43
Rossi 2007		31	0.29	47	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	7	0.58	27	0.24
Rubinstein 1939		27	0.30	56	0.00	38	0.08	39	0.22	58	0.06	42	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		17	0.39	12	0.01	18	0.10	15	0.56	27	0.40	15	0.47
Rubinstein 1966		23	0.33	22	0.00	20	0.10	23	0.46	60	0.05	34	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		70	0.17	20	0.00	78	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.04	74	0.03
Shebanova 2002		76	0.14	88	0.00	76	0.02	84	0.02	85	0.03	85	0.02
Smith 1975		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Sokolov 2002		13	0.42	26	0.00	15	0.23	16	0.53	15	0.50	13	0.51
Sztompka 1959		43	0.26	29	0.00	51	0.05	62	0.05	70	0.05	58	0.05
Tomsic 1995		20	0.35	21	0.00	17	0.11	14	0.59	26	0.29	20	0.41
Uninsky 1932		58	0.21	78	0.00	65	0.05	59	0.05	81	0.03	67	0.04
Uninsky 1971		8	0.48	7	0.03	9	0.21	7	0.75	6	0.58	9	0.66
Wasowski 1980		38	0.27	89	0.00	44	0.07	42	0.14	76	0.05	47	0.08
Zak 1937		84	0.07	90	0.00	84	0.02	83	0.02	86	0.02	82	0.02
Zak 1951		81	0.08	91	0.00	73	0.03	74	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.03
Average		7	0.49	67	0.00	13	0.18	8	0.71	88	0.02	41	0.12
Random 1		91	-0.01	44	0.00	71	0.04	72	0.04	31	0.25	45	0.10
Random 2		86	0.06	52	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	7	0.49	32	0.16
Random 3		80	0.09	17	0.00	66	0.05	65	0.05	2	0.65	30	0.18

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).