Zak 1951

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		58	0.24	41	0.00	54	0.05	57	0.05	57	0.04	71	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		55	0.25	42	0.00	47	0.05	52	0.05	34	0.22	41	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		14	0.39	12	0.00	21	0.11	17	0.52	53	0.07	30	0.19
Bacha 2000		46	0.29	22	0.00	48	0.06	51	0.06	36	0.24	38	0.12
Badura 1965		62	0.22	43	0.00	58	0.07	47	0.07	52	0.05	53	0.06
Barbosa 1983		13	0.40	13	0.00	15	0.12	9	0.65	17	0.52	8	0.58
Biret 1990		43	0.30	3	0.00	19	0.12	19	0.49	15	0.60	11	0.54
Blet 2003		17	0.39	23	0.00	10	0.10	10	0.65	22	0.54	7	0.59
Block 1995		27	0.34	4	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.18	47	0.06	42	0.10
Blumental 1952		53	0.26	44	0.00	61	0.04	65	0.04	54	0.05	72	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		3	0.51	24	0.00	2	0.46	3	0.82	6	0.72	2	0.77
Brailowsky 1960		31	0.33	45	0.00	33	0.08	28	0.35	25	0.50	17	0.42
Bunin 1987		37	0.32	14	0.00	31	0.08	32	0.32	35	0.28	24	0.30
Bunin 1987b		36	0.32	46	0.00	32	0.12	33	0.32	35	0.27	25	0.29
Chiu 1999		7	0.43	25	0.00	17	0.12	14	0.57	51	0.08	28	0.21
Cohen 1997		73	0.14	47	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	64	0.04	81	0.03
Cortot 1951		72	0.16	5	0.00	81	0.03	78	0.03	88	0.02	88	0.02
Csalog 1996		25	0.34	48	0.00	20	0.12	18	0.50	24	0.42	14	0.46
Czerny 1949		86	0.05	15	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	66	0.04	79	0.03
Czerny 1990		84	0.07	49	0.00	87	0.03	86	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03
Duchoud 2007		34	0.33	50	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.11	49	0.07	45	0.09
Ezaki 2006		76	0.13	26	0.00	77	0.03	85	0.03	77	0.03	74	0.03
Falvay 1989		39	0.31	27	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.13	62	0.04	49	0.07
Farrell 1958		57	0.24	51	0.00	9	0.11	29	0.34	29	0.33	22	0.33
Ferenczy 1958		77	0.13	28	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	42	0.27	44	0.09
Fliere 1977		41	0.30	29	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	69	0.04	55	0.05
Fou 1978		51	0.27	52	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	56	0.05	47	0.08
Francois 1956		75	0.14	53	0.00	74	0.03	74	0.03	58	0.04	86	0.03
Friedman 1923		9	0.42	54	0.00	12	0.14	6	0.68	25	0.53	6	0.60
Friedman 1923b		8	0.43	55	0.00	11	0.11	5	0.70	25	0.54	5	0.61
Friedman 1930		24	0.35	56	0.00	23	0.10	22	0.44	44	0.16	27	0.27
Garcia 2007		12	0.42	16	0.00	14	0.11	13	0.61	19	0.47	10	0.54
Garcia 2007b		49	0.27	30	0.00	41	0.06	44	0.13	41	0.17	35	0.15
Gierzod 1998		67	0.20	17	0.00	69	0.07	48	0.07	58	0.06	52	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		80	0.10	7	0.00	73	0.03	81	0.03	77	0.03	82	0.03
Groot 1988		60	0.24	57	0.00	64	0.03	72	0.03	78	0.03	85	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		10	0.42	2	0.00	7	0.10	12	0.61	29	0.31	16	0.43
Hatto 1993		44	0.29	58	0.00	51	0.05	59	0.05	49	0.10	50	0.07
Hatto 1997		59	0.24	59	0.00	66	0.03	77	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03
Horowitz 1949		22	0.37	18	0.00	24	0.10	23	0.44	39	0.30	21	0.36
Indjic 1988		32	0.33	60	0.00	36	0.07	37	0.25	46	0.13	31	0.18
Kapell 1951		21	0.37	19	0.00	22	0.08	26	0.42	36	0.18	26	0.27
Kissin 1993		64	0.22	61	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	74	0.05	61	0.05
Kushner 1989		42	0.30	8	0.00	49	0.05	64	0.05	55	0.06	59	0.05
Luisada 1991		6	0.44	31	0.00	13	0.11	7	0.68	28	0.41	12	0.53
Lushtak 2004		5	0.44	32	0.00	4	0.26	8	0.68	4	0.61	4	0.64
Malcuzynski 1961		26	0.34	33	0.00	34	0.08	31	0.33	43	0.13	29	0.21
Magaloff 1978		56	0.25	6	0.00	56	0.05	62	0.05	55	0.05	58	0.05
Magin 1975		45	0.29	62	0.00	38	0.07	39	0.17	49	0.09	39	0.12
Michalowski 1933		23	0.35	63	0.00	25	0.10	20	0.49	37	0.31	18	0.39
Milkina 1970		70	0.16	64	0.00	70	0.07	46	0.07	55	0.06	51	0.06
Mohovich 1999		16	0.39	65	0.00	18	0.13	27	0.38	20	0.40	19	0.39
Moravec 1969		68	0.20	66	0.00	72	0.05	61	0.05	83	0.03	63	0.04
Morozova 2008		63	0.22	67	0.00	59	0.05	54	0.05	76	0.04	70	0.04
Neighaus 1950		4	0.44	68	0.00	6	0.15	11	0.64	31	0.30	15	0.44
Niedzielski 1931		29	0.34	69	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.42	58	0.06	32	0.16
Ohlsson 1999		30	0.34	70	0.00	35	0.07	34	0.32	50	0.06	36	0.14
Osinska 1989		20	0.37	71	0.00	16	0.13	15	0.56	23	0.52	9	0.54
Pachmann 1927		15	0.39	34	0.00	8	0.11	16	0.52	34	0.44	13	0.48
Paderewski 1930		61	0.23	72	0.00	65	0.04	69	0.04	71	0.05	68	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		54	0.25	73	0.00	57	0.05	53	0.05	76	0.04	64	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		52	0.26	35	0.00	67	0.04	70	0.04	61	0.04	66	0.04
Poblocka 1999		50	0.27	74	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	61	0.05	56	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		79	0.11	36	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	75	0.03	77	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		65	0.21	75	0.00	71	0.05	63	0.05	63	0.04	65	0.04
Rangell 2001		19	0.37	20	0.00	28	0.08	21	0.47	29	0.29	20	0.37
Richter 1976		35	0.32	76	0.00	50	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.06	60	0.05
Rosen 1989		40	0.30	9	0.00	46	0.06	50	0.06	57	0.04	62	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		88	0.03	37	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.06	77	0.00	80	0.04	67	0.04	53	0.05	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		71	0.16	78	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	40	0.23	43	0.10
Rosenthal 1931c		74	0.14	79	0.00	63	0.03	73	0.03	77	0.02	89	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.12	80	0.00	75	0.04	71	0.04	66	0.03	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		87	0.05	81	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	43	0.09	57	0.05
Rubinstein 1939		81	0.09	82	0.00	82	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	76	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		66	0.20	38	0.00	55	0.04	66	0.04	67	0.04	73	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		33	0.33	10	0.00	26	0.10	24	0.42	49	0.06	33	0.16
Schilhawsky 1960		11	0.42	11	0.00	5	0.25	4	0.75	1	0.74	3	0.74
Shebanova 2002		28	0.34	83	0.00	37	0.07	36	0.27	63	0.07	37	0.14
Smith 1975		83	0.08	84	0.00	85	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.03	75	0.03
Sokolov 2002		48	0.29	85	0.00	40	0.08	41	0.15	68	0.03	48	0.07
Sztompka 1959		82	0.09	39	0.00	84	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.02	87	0.02
Tomsic 1995		69	0.19	86	0.00	68	0.05	55	0.05	75	0.03	67	0.04
Uninsky 1932		18	0.38	21	0.00	29	0.08	30	0.33	48	0.08	34	0.16
Uninsky 1971		38	0.32	87	0.00	30	0.08	35	0.30	61	0.05	40	0.12
Wasowski 1980		47	0.29	40	0.00	42	0.05	40	0.17	77	0.04	46	0.08
Zak 1937		1	0.98	1	1.00	1	0.99	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Zak 1951		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Average		2	0.55	88	0.00	3	0.44	2	0.83	44	0.11	23	0.30
Random 1		89	0.00	89	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	48	0.04	80	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.10	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	83	0.02	90	0.01
Random 3		90	-0.02	91	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	32	0.17	54	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).