Wasowski 1980

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		69	0.23	80	0.00	68	0.05	68	0.05	72	0.04	77	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		79	0.12	56	0.00	77	0.04	82	0.04	80	0.03	81	0.03
Ashkenazy 1981		21	0.49	48	0.00	26	0.09	18	0.57	31	0.50	27	0.53
Bacha 2000		81	0.06	81	0.00	81	0.05	65	0.05	81	0.02	79	0.03
Badura 1965		73	0.22	50	0.00	69	0.05	67	0.05	44	0.12	57	0.08
Barbosa 1983		48	0.32	43	0.00	43	0.08	39	0.26	26	0.39	39	0.32
Biret 1990		24	0.48	38	0.00	12	0.10	10	0.68	2	0.81	3	0.74
Blet 2003		18	0.50	7	0.03	10	0.13	21	0.55	13	0.64	18	0.59
Block 1995		51	0.31	71	0.00	62	0.05	66	0.05	54	0.05	69	0.05
Blumental 1952		76	0.16	49	0.00	76	0.04	80	0.04	82	0.03	82	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		55	0.30	82	0.00	51	0.05	61	0.05	62	0.06	70	0.05
Brailowsky 1960		82	0.04	83	0.00	82	0.04	81	0.04	83	0.03	80	0.03
Bunin 1987		32	0.42	51	0.00	34	0.13	30	0.46	19	0.50	34	0.48
Bunin 1987b		31	0.43	47	0.00	33	0.10	31	0.46	20	0.50	33	0.48
Chiu 1999		9	0.54	10	0.02	8	0.20	4	0.75	9	0.69	5	0.72
Cohen 1997		58	0.30	23	0.00	48	0.07	50	0.07	47	0.10	58	0.08
Cortot 1951		72	0.22	41	0.00	63	0.05	73	0.05	43	0.13	60	0.08
Csalog 1996		14	0.52	2	0.22	2	0.23	13	0.64	4	0.75	10	0.69
Czerny 1949		68	0.23	29	0.00	70	0.07	48	0.07	36	0.47	45	0.18
Czerny 1990		20	0.50	26	0.00	27	0.09	29	0.48	23	0.64	25	0.55
Duchoud 2007		3	0.57	6	0.04	7	0.18	3	0.79	2	0.82	1	0.80
Ezaki 2006		78	0.13	64	0.00	79	0.05	69	0.05	81	0.03	71	0.04
Falvay 1989		47	0.33	11	0.02	39	0.10	38	0.28	20	0.39	37	0.33
Farrell 1958		30	0.44	12	0.01	11	0.11	20	0.56	6	0.63	17	0.59
Ferenczy 1958		91	-0.10	84	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	77	0.03	85	0.02
Fliere 1977		17	0.50	72	0.00	25	0.10	19	0.57	31	0.50	26	0.53
Fou 1978		59	0.30	39	0.00	56	0.05	63	0.05	66	0.04	73	0.04
Francois 1956		53	0.31	85	0.00	65	0.06	58	0.06	36	0.33	50	0.14
Friedman 1923		15	0.52	59	0.00	14	0.14	9	0.69	12	0.71	9	0.70
Friedman 1923b		10	0.53	37	0.00	9	0.12	8	0.71	11	0.74	8	0.72
Friedman 1930		4	0.57	4	0.10	4	0.21	6	0.72	9	0.72	7	0.72
Garcia 2007		70	0.23	73	0.00	72	0.07	51	0.07	67	0.05	61	0.06
Garcia 2007b		37	0.39	53	0.00	47	0.07	49	0.07	29	0.41	46	0.17
Gierzod 1998		90	-0.10	74	0.00	86	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.02	87	0.02
Gornostaeva 1994		63	0.27	75	0.00	57	0.05	70	0.05	48	0.08	63	0.06
Groot 1988		6	0.55	13	0.01	19	0.12	11	0.66	11	0.59	13	0.62
Harasiewicz 1955		38	0.39	62	0.00	40	0.08	42	0.23	56	0.05	53	0.11
Hatto 1993		26	0.48	19	0.01	18	0.09	25	0.54	18	0.53	28	0.53
Hatto 1997		35	0.41	44	0.00	32	0.09	35	0.41	16	0.45	36	0.43
Horowitz 1949		11	0.53	15	0.01	24	0.11	26	0.54	11	0.71	12	0.62
Indjic 1988		23	0.49	21	0.00	17	0.08	22	0.55	19	0.58	22	0.56
Kapell 1951		13	0.52	17	0.01	20	0.13	15	0.61	10	0.59	16	0.60
Kissin 1993		34	0.42	67	0.00	31	0.12	32	0.45	22	0.58	30	0.51
Kushner 1989		46	0.33	57	0.00	58	0.05	74	0.05	62	0.05	66	0.05
Luisada 1991		19	0.50	14	0.01	22	0.19	12	0.66	12	0.66	11	0.66
Lushtak 2004		74	0.19	45	0.00	74	0.05	60	0.05	69	0.05	68	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		60	0.30	40	0.00	64	0.05	62	0.05	70	0.04	74	0.04
Magaloff 1978		42	0.35	65	0.00	52	0.06	54	0.06	54	0.05	64	0.05
Magin 1975		28	0.46	9	0.02	16	0.09	28	0.51	17	0.66	20	0.58
Michalowski 1933		25	0.48	60	0.00	30	0.16	27	0.52	13	0.53	29	0.52
Milkina 1970		65	0.25	86	0.00	50	0.06	52	0.06	30	0.37	48	0.15
Mohovich 1999		83	0.04	66	0.00	85	0.02	84	0.02	87	0.02	88	0.02
Moravec 1969		29	0.46	42	0.00	28	0.11	24	0.55	7	0.68	14	0.61
Morozova 2008		56	0.30	63	0.00	49	0.06	57	0.06	79	0.03	76	0.04
Neighaus 1950		16	0.50	35	0.00	21	0.16	14	0.61	12	0.52	24	0.56
Niedzielski 1931		33	0.42	27	0.00	36	0.08	40	0.24	35	0.24	42	0.24
Ohlsson 1999		7	0.55	5	0.04	5	0.19	5	0.73	2	0.71	6	0.72
Osinska 1989		40	0.38	24	0.00	37	0.09	33	0.43	21	0.54	32	0.48
Pachmann 1927		36	0.40	52	0.00	35	0.12	34	0.42	26	0.50	35	0.46
Paderewski 1930		44	0.34	28	0.00	45	0.08	45	0.16	33	0.36	43	0.24
Perlemuter 1992		57	0.30	76	0.00	67	0.04	79	0.04	79	0.04	72	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		27	0.46	34	0.00	29	0.10	36	0.40	11	0.61	31	0.49
Poblocka 1999		41	0.36	68	0.00	42	0.09	44	0.19	26	0.38	40	0.27
Rabcewiczowa 1932		75	0.17	87	0.00	78	0.05	75	0.05	60	0.05	65	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		22	0.49	30	0.00	15	0.13	23	0.55	16	0.67	15	0.61
Rangell 2001		52	0.31	61	0.00	55	0.06	53	0.06	44	0.10	59	0.08
Richter 1976		5	0.55	25	0.00	13	0.10	7	0.71	17	0.76	4	0.73
Rosen 1989		39	0.38	32	0.00	41	0.08	41	0.23	41	0.17	44	0.20
Rosenthal 1930		71	0.23	77	0.00	75	0.06	56	0.06	83	0.03	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		89	-0.09	69	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Rosenthal 1931b		88	-0.04	88	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.11	70	0.00	80	0.05	72	0.05	83	0.02	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.00	78	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	86	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		77	0.13	33	0.00	73	0.05	71	0.05	23	0.31	51	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		50	0.32	20	0.00	38	0.09	37	0.28	15	0.39	38	0.33
Rubinstein 1952		43	0.34	36	0.00	46	0.08	46	0.08	37	0.19	52	0.12
Rubinstein 1966		66	0.24	54	0.00	71	0.06	55	0.06	75	0.04	67	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		64	0.26	89	0.00	54	0.05	59	0.05	28	0.37	49	0.14
Shebanova 2002		8	0.54	8	0.02	6	0.16	17	0.58	29	0.55	23	0.56
Smith 1975		62	0.27	22	0.00	59	0.05	76	0.05	42	0.14	55	0.08
Sokolov 2002		54	0.31	31	0.00	66	0.05	64	0.05	42	0.18	54	0.09
Sztompka 1959		12	0.52	18	0.01	23	0.16	16	0.59	13	0.58	21	0.58
Tomsic 1995		45	0.33	16	0.01	44	0.10	43	0.22	23	0.31	41	0.26
Uninsky 1932		2	0.58	3	0.10	3	0.21	2	0.79	5	0.73	2	0.76
Uninsky 1971		67	0.24	90	0.00	61	0.04	78	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.04
Wasowski 1980		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Zak 1937		49	0.32	91	0.00	53	0.08	47	0.08	34	0.28	47	0.15
Zak 1951		61	0.29	58	0.00	60	0.04	77	0.04	40	0.17	56	0.08
Average		1	0.64	1	0.25	1	0.24	1	0.84	23	0.42	19	0.59
Random 1		87	-0.01	46	0.00	84	0.02	86	0.02	47	0.05	83	0.03
Random 2		86	-0.01	79	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	72	0.03	86	0.02
Random 3		84	0.03	55	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	30	0.18	62	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).