Zak 1937

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		60	0.24	48	0.00	65	0.07	50	0.07	60	0.04	65	0.05
Anderszewski 2003		65	0.20	49	0.00	60	0.06	60	0.06	49	0.07	51	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		18	0.40	14	0.00	23	0.11	18	0.49	57	0.07	32	0.19
Bacha 2000		56	0.25	50	0.00	61	0.06	57	0.06	56	0.05	53	0.05
Badura 1965		64	0.21	19	0.00	56	0.05	66	0.05	47	0.06	67	0.05
Barbosa 1983		15	0.41	51	0.00	17	0.14	12	0.65	13	0.58	10	0.61
Biret 1990		45	0.30	52	0.00	19	0.09	26	0.40	17	0.59	14	0.49
Blet 2003		14	0.41	53	0.00	11	0.11	9	0.68	14	0.63	7	0.65
Block 1995		29	0.35	7	0.00	37	0.06	44	0.13	57	0.05	44	0.08
Blumental 1952		58	0.24	54	0.00	66	0.09	46	0.09	48	0.06	47	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		3	0.53	2	0.00	2	0.49	3	0.82	5	0.74	2	0.78
Brailowsky 1960		34	0.34	55	0.00	33	0.08	33	0.33	19	0.53	18	0.42
Bunin 1987		31	0.34	56	0.00	31	0.09	27	0.38	32	0.35	27	0.36
Bunin 1987b		30	0.34	20	0.00	32	0.12	29	0.37	32	0.35	25	0.36
Chiu 1999		9	0.45	27	0.00	15	0.11	13	0.63	32	0.36	16	0.48
Cohen 1997		74	0.12	28	0.00	78	0.03	73	0.03	70	0.03	78	0.03
Cortot 1951		69	0.15	57	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	82	0.02	88	0.02
Csalog 1996		23	0.37	58	0.00	14	0.12	14	0.55	17	0.51	11	0.53
Czerny 1949		87	0.04	59	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	69	0.04	77	0.03
Czerny 1990		75	0.12	60	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	73	0.03	79	0.03
Duchoud 2007		22	0.37	29	0.00	36	0.07	35	0.27	47	0.08	36	0.15
Ezaki 2006		79	0.10	30	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03
Falvay 1989		43	0.30	9	0.00	49	0.05	63	0.05	67	0.03	71	0.04
Farrell 1958		50	0.28	61	0.00	13	0.15	28	0.37	21	0.46	20	0.41
Ferenczy 1958		82	0.09	62	0.00	82	0.03	74	0.03	51	0.07	64	0.05
Fliere 1977		32	0.34	63	0.00	42	0.08	39	0.19	55	0.06	38	0.11
Fou 1978		52	0.27	64	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.18	52	0.05	42	0.09
Francois 1956		80	0.10	65	0.00	81	0.03	79	0.03	79	0.02	89	0.02
Friedman 1923		8	0.46	21	0.00	6	0.15	5	0.74	15	0.69	4	0.71
Friedman 1923b		4	0.47	22	0.00	5	0.18	4	0.75	14	0.70	3	0.72
Friedman 1930		25	0.36	5	0.00	22	0.11	21	0.47	41	0.33	23	0.39
Garcia 2007		6	0.47	6	0.00	9	0.11	7	0.69	13	0.59	8	0.64
Garcia 2007b		42	0.30	31	0.00	34	0.07	37	0.23	34	0.33	30	0.28
Gierzod 1998		70	0.15	32	0.00	69	0.05	67	0.05	59	0.06	66	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		81	0.09	66	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.02	87	0.02
Groot 1988		53	0.27	67	0.00	59	0.05	62	0.05	71	0.04	72	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		12	0.42	33	0.00	16	0.12	16	0.53	30	0.30	22	0.40
Hatto 1993		46	0.30	34	0.00	51	0.06	56	0.06	62	0.07	52	0.06
Hatto 1997		57	0.24	68	0.00	62	0.06	55	0.06	62	0.04	63	0.05
Horowitz 1949		11	0.42	35	0.00	18	0.12	17	0.52	26	0.51	13	0.51
Indjic 1988		36	0.33	36	0.00	44	0.05	42	0.13	50	0.08	41	0.10
Kapell 1951		17	0.40	69	0.00	21	0.11	25	0.44	29	0.31	24	0.37
Kissin 1993		61	0.24	37	0.00	52	0.05	70	0.05	67	0.05	61	0.05
Kushner 1989		48	0.29	15	0.00	55	0.07	48	0.07	71	0.04	58	0.05
Luisada 1991		5	0.47	70	0.00	8	0.14	6	0.73	19	0.58	6	0.65
Lushtak 2004		10	0.43	10	0.00	4	0.19	11	0.66	5	0.61	9	0.63
Malcuzynski 1961		40	0.31	23	0.00	48	0.06	53	0.06	60	0.05	59	0.05
Magaloff 1978		55	0.25	38	0.00	54	0.06	54	0.06	60	0.05	57	0.05
Magin 1975		49	0.28	71	0.00	38	0.06	41	0.16	44	0.16	33	0.16
Michalowski 1933		27	0.36	72	0.00	28	0.10	22	0.46	33	0.35	21	0.40
Milkina 1970		71	0.13	73	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	74	0.03	75	0.03
Mohovich 1999		21	0.38	74	0.00	24	0.11	31	0.36	23	0.37	26	0.36
Moravec 1969		66	0.20	39	0.00	70	0.07	51	0.07	87	0.02	69	0.04
Morozova 2008		63	0.22	40	0.00	53	0.05	64	0.05	58	0.05	62	0.05
Neighaus 1950		7	0.46	11	0.00	7	0.16	8	0.68	25	0.35	15	0.49
Niedzielski 1931		28	0.35	75	0.00	29	0.10	23	0.46	43	0.17	29	0.28
Ohlsson 1999		35	0.33	76	0.00	39	0.07	36	0.25	73	0.04	40	0.10
Osinska 1989		26	0.36	77	0.00	20	0.10	19	0.47	28	0.45	17	0.46
Pachmann 1927		16	0.40	41	0.00	12	0.12	15	0.53	24	0.52	12	0.52
Paderewski 1930		62	0.24	42	0.00	63	0.07	49	0.07	63	0.06	50	0.06
Perlemuter 1992		59	0.24	43	0.00	58	0.05	65	0.05	52	0.05	54	0.05
Pierdomenico 2008		41	0.31	78	0.00	50	0.06	59	0.06	46	0.07	48	0.06
Poblocka 1999		44	0.30	79	0.00	41	0.06	38	0.19	51	0.05	39	0.10
Rabcewiczowa 1932		78	0.11	80	0.00	84	0.03	82	0.03	76	0.03	74	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		54	0.26	3	0.00	64	0.06	61	0.06	75	0.03	70	0.04
Rangell 2001		19	0.40	44	0.00	26	0.09	20	0.47	20	0.38	19	0.42
Richter 1976		33	0.34	24	0.00	46	0.07	47	0.07	55	0.06	49	0.06
Rosen 1989		39	0.32	16	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	64	0.04	46	0.07
Rosenthal 1930		85	0.05	25	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Rosenthal 1931		88	0.02	81	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	80	0.02	84	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		73	0.13	17	0.00	71	0.05	68	0.05	44	0.13	45	0.08
Rosenthal 1931c		76	0.12	82	0.00	72	0.03	72	0.03	72	0.03	81	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		77	0.11	83	0.00	74	0.03	75	0.03	65	0.03	80	0.03
Rossi 2007		86	0.04	84	0.00	75	0.03	85	0.03	45	0.09	56	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		84	0.07	85	0.00	85	0.03	77	0.03	89	0.02	83	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		67	0.19	86	0.00	57	0.05	69	0.05	52	0.06	68	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		37	0.33	45	0.00	30	0.09	32	0.34	77	0.04	37	0.12
Schilhawsky 1960		20	0.40	87	0.00	10	0.13	10	0.67	2	0.71	5	0.69
Shebanova 2002		24	0.37	46	0.00	27	0.08	24	0.45	58	0.08	31	0.19
Smith 1975		83	0.07	88	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	83	0.02	82	0.02
Sokolov 2002		51	0.28	18	0.00	47	0.07	52	0.07	50	0.04	55	0.05
Sztompka 1959		72	0.13	12	0.00	76	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03
Tomsic 1995		68	0.17	26	0.00	67	0.06	58	0.06	71	0.04	60	0.05
Uninsky 1932		13	0.41	4	0.00	25	0.10	30	0.36	50	0.07	34	0.16
Uninsky 1971		47	0.29	89	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	55	0.06	43	0.09
Wasowski 1980		38	0.32	47	0.00	35	0.07	34	0.28	47	0.08	35	0.15
Zak 1937		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Zak 1951		1	0.98	1	1.00	1	0.98	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Average		2	0.56	13	0.00	3	0.48	2	0.82	38	0.14	28	0.34
Random 1		89	0.00	90	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	65	0.03	85	0.02
Random 2		91	-0.11	91	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.01	90	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.04	8	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	47	0.04	86	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).