Uninsky 1971

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	0.47	10	0.01	7	0.14	5	0.60	4	0.65	5	0.62
Anderszewski 2003		37	0.34	49	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.23	20	0.48	31	0.33
Ashkenazy 1981		33	0.36	29	0.00	34	0.06	37	0.20	45	0.13	48	0.16
Bacha 2000		28	0.38	45	0.00	22	0.06	21	0.38	10	0.56	19	0.46
Badura 1965		44	0.32	38	0.00	50	0.09	46	0.09	13	0.54	39	0.22
Barbosa 1983		46	0.32	21	0.00	66	0.06	57	0.06	63	0.05	70	0.05
Biret 1990		29	0.37	85	0.00	38	0.06	41	0.16	19	0.58	35	0.30
Blet 2003		48	0.32	42	0.00	51	0.07	47	0.07	43	0.24	50	0.13
Block 1995		51	0.31	47	0.00	54	0.05	64	0.05	56	0.05	72	0.05
Blumental 1952		18	0.41	23	0.00	17	0.09	11	0.48	8	0.65	7	0.56
Boshniakovich 1969		69	0.25	17	0.00	44	0.07	44	0.14	43	0.14	49	0.14
Brailowsky 1960		10	0.44	16	0.01	11	0.08	7	0.58	5	0.70	4	0.64
Bunin 1987		81	0.21	26	0.00	80	0.04	70	0.04	57	0.06	73	0.05
Bunin 1987b		80	0.21	53	0.00	79	0.03	81	0.03	59	0.06	77	0.04
Chiu 1999		50	0.31	78	0.00	76	0.04	71	0.04	59	0.06	65	0.05
Cohen 1997		26	0.38	56	0.00	49	0.07	48	0.07	24	0.47	42	0.18
Cortot 1951		30	0.37	86	0.00	42	0.06	42	0.15	15	0.57	36	0.29
Csalog 1996		78	0.23	50	0.00	87	0.03	80	0.03	62	0.05	78	0.04
Czerny 1949		23	0.39	59	0.00	24	0.06	25	0.33	11	0.78	14	0.51
Czerny 1990		83	0.20	57	0.00	77	0.04	73	0.04	59	0.06	74	0.05
Duchoud 2007		49	0.32	60	0.00	37	0.06	39	0.17	45	0.15	47	0.16
Ezaki 2006		3	0.50	5	0.02	4	0.20	3	0.66	2	0.78	2	0.72
Falvay 1989		16	0.41	12	0.01	21	0.07	20	0.38	8	0.53	22	0.45
Farrell 1958		73	0.24	66	0.00	59	0.05	65	0.05	64	0.05	66	0.05
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.30	35	0.00	61	0.05	60	0.05	24	0.69	41	0.19
Fliere 1977		42	0.33	77	0.00	52	0.07	49	0.07	52	0.06	59	0.06
Fou 1978		39	0.34	22	0.00	35	0.06	29	0.30	32	0.35	32	0.32
Francois 1956		19	0.40	14	0.01	27	0.07	17	0.42	16	0.66	12	0.53
Friedman 1923		68	0.26	87	0.00	70	0.03	76	0.03	62	0.06	82	0.04
Friedman 1923b		70	0.25	62	0.00	71	0.04	66	0.04	51	0.09	62	0.06
Friedman 1930		60	0.30	51	0.00	56	0.04	68	0.04	51	0.07	71	0.05
Garcia 2007		87	0.14	67	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	60	0.05	80	0.04
Garcia 2007b		84	0.17	79	0.00	83	0.02	89	0.02	61	0.05	89	0.03
Gierzod 1998		55	0.31	31	0.00	32	0.07	32	0.26	18	0.62	25	0.40
Gornostaeva 1994		2	0.51	2	0.08	2	0.29	2	0.68	5	0.79	1	0.73
Groot 1988		17	0.41	63	0.00	18	0.11	12	0.47	30	0.33	26	0.39
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.44	27	0.00	8	0.11	9	0.52	17	0.48	16	0.50
Hatto 1993		34	0.35	72	0.00	30	0.07	31	0.27	39	0.24	38	0.25
Hatto 1997		4	0.49	3	0.06	3	0.24	10	0.52	7	0.57	10	0.54
Horowitz 1949		86	0.16	82	0.00	85	0.02	83	0.02	66	0.05	85	0.03
Indjic 1988		38	0.34	34	0.00	31	0.08	33	0.25	38	0.25	37	0.25
Kapell 1951		62	0.30	28	0.00	43	0.07	40	0.16	37	0.17	46	0.16
Kissin 1993		71	0.24	24	0.00	63	0.05	63	0.05	47	0.10	56	0.07
Kushner 1989		43	0.32	25	0.00	55	0.04	67	0.04	52	0.07	67	0.05
Luisada 1991		54	0.31	41	0.00	67	0.07	52	0.07	61	0.05	58	0.06
Lushtak 2004		64	0.28	55	0.00	75	0.03	75	0.03	59	0.05	81	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		40	0.33	73	0.00	48	0.07	50	0.07	41	0.15	54	0.10
Magaloff 1978		59	0.30	30	0.00	58	0.06	56	0.06	50	0.06	60	0.06
Magin 1975		36	0.35	13	0.01	46	0.06	54	0.06	32	0.44	45	0.16
Michalowski 1933		57	0.31	6	0.02	33	0.06	45	0.12	46	0.10	53	0.11
Milkina 1970		25	0.38	4	0.03	14	0.06	30	0.28	21	0.46	27	0.36
Mohovich 1999		27	0.38	32	0.00	40	0.07	34	0.24	21	0.39	34	0.31
Moravec 1969		65	0.27	40	0.00	60	0.04	72	0.04	60	0.04	75	0.04
Morozova 2008		31	0.37	64	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.23	43	0.12	44	0.17
Neighaus 1950		13	0.42	54	0.00	16	0.07	13	0.44	36	0.27	30	0.34
Niedzielski 1931		79	0.21	58	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	71	0.04	84	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		12	0.42	74	0.00	20	0.07	27	0.32	31	0.30	33	0.31
Osinska 1989		21	0.40	36	0.00	28	0.08	24	0.35	17	0.58	21	0.45
Pachmann 1927		77	0.23	75	0.00	78	0.02	85	0.02	72	0.05	87	0.03
Paderewski 1930		75	0.23	68	0.00	74	0.03	77	0.03	51	0.07	68	0.05
Perlemuter 1992		20	0.40	19	0.00	9	0.15	14	0.43	23	0.57	15	0.50
Pierdomenico 2008		85	0.16	69	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	77	0.03	90	0.02
Poblocka 1999		41	0.33	83	0.00	57	0.05	59	0.05	50	0.06	63	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		11	0.42	20	0.00	26	0.07	23	0.37	16	0.69	13	0.51
Rachmaninoff 1923		72	0.24	46	0.00	72	0.03	74	0.03	67	0.04	83	0.03
Rangell 2001		66	0.27	65	0.00	53	0.07	53	0.07	34	0.24	51	0.13
Richter 1976		82	0.21	80	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	76	0.04	86	0.03
Rosen 1989		14	0.41	8	0.02	10	0.14	8	0.55	21	0.51	11	0.53
Rosenthal 1930		24	0.39	37	0.00	29	0.07	22	0.37	13	0.61	18	0.48
Rosenthal 1931		52	0.31	76	0.00	41	0.07	38	0.18	14	0.68	28	0.35
Rosenthal 1931b		35	0.35	44	0.00	12	0.08	15	0.43	10	0.73	8	0.56
Rosenthal 1931c		53	0.31	71	0.00	47	0.07	51	0.07	23	0.48	43	0.18
Rosenthal 1931d		58	0.30	39	0.00	23	0.06	26	0.33	9	0.64	20	0.46
Rossi 2007		88	0.14	48	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	37	0.14	64	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		15	0.41	15	0.01	19	0.07	28	0.31	16	0.38	29	0.34
Rubinstein 1952		32	0.37	52	0.00	25	0.06	19	0.40	17	0.51	23	0.45
Rubinstein 1966		22	0.40	18	0.00	13	0.06	18	0.40	19	0.41	24	0.40
Schilhawsky 1960		76	0.23	43	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	58	0.05	79	0.04
Shebanova 2002		56	0.31	88	0.00	65	0.05	58	0.05	48	0.10	57	0.07
Smith 1975		5	0.48	9	0.02	6	0.12	6	0.58	7	0.75	3	0.66
Sokolov 2002		7	0.46	11	0.01	15	0.06	16	0.42	9	0.57	17	0.49
Sztompka 1959		67	0.26	61	0.00	64	0.05	62	0.05	56	0.06	69	0.05
Tomsic 1995		45	0.32	33	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.15	27	0.28	40	0.20
Uninsky 1932		8	0.44	7	0.02	5	0.17	4	0.62	19	0.48	9	0.55
Uninsky 1971		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Wasowski 1980		74	0.24	89	0.00	69	0.04	69	0.04	78	0.04	76	0.04
Zak 1937		63	0.29	81	0.00	68	0.06	55	0.06	43	0.13	55	0.09
Zak 1951		47	0.32	70	0.00	62	0.05	61	0.05	35	0.30	52	0.12
Average		1	0.60	1	0.60	1	0.59	1	0.83	20	0.45	6	0.61
Random 1		90	0.02	90	0.00	90	0.02	90	0.02	59	0.04	88	0.03
Random 2		89	0.03	91	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	39	0.16	61	0.06
Random 3		91	-0.06	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	61	0.03	91	0.02

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).