Ashkenazy 1981

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	0.43	60	0.00	66	0.04	65	0.04	55	0.05	83	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		22	0.59	80	0.00	18	0.11	18	0.44	6	0.56	16	0.50
Ashkenazy 1981		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Bacha 2000		45	0.53	61	0.00	64	0.04	71	0.04	7	0.57	44	0.15
Badura 1965		58	0.48	18	0.00	47	0.04	58	0.04	11	0.46	49	0.14
Barbosa 1983		74	0.39	73	0.00	62	0.03	79	0.03	42	0.15	72	0.07
Biret 1990		48	0.52	64	0.00	54	0.05	50	0.05	29	0.36	53	0.13
Blet 2003		35	0.55	51	0.00	40	0.06	40	0.14	18	0.41	40	0.24
Block 1995		57	0.48	23	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	25	0.29	59	0.12
Blumental 1952		34	0.55	28	0.00	26	0.08	34	0.22	3	0.60	27	0.36
Boshniakovich 1969		41	0.53	40	0.00	59	0.04	69	0.04	28	0.32	63	0.11
Brailowsky 1960		67	0.44	38	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	60	0.04	89	0.03
Bunin 1987		32	0.56	26	0.00	52	0.06	46	0.06	31	0.28	52	0.13
Bunin 1987b		31	0.56	52	0.00	51	0.05	51	0.05	31	0.28	56	0.12
Chiu 1999		44	0.53	31	0.00	31	0.07	28	0.31	16	0.51	24	0.40
Cohen 1997		68	0.44	9	0.01	74	0.03	78	0.03	24	0.33	65	0.10
Cortot 1951		59	0.47	74	0.00	55	0.05	54	0.05	22	0.34	54	0.13
Csalog 1996		79	0.37	75	0.00	76	0.03	76	0.03	30	0.29	68	0.09
Czerny 1949		73	0.41	69	0.00	70	0.04	72	0.04	54	0.05	82	0.04
Czerny 1990		12	0.64	14	0.01	13	0.10	11	0.50	2	0.66	11	0.57
Duchoud 2007		21	0.60	76	0.00	19	0.11	19	0.42	5	0.55	17	0.48
Ezaki 2006		28	0.57	43	0.00	38	0.06	43	0.11	40	0.11	61	0.11
Falvay 1989		37	0.54	47	0.00	33	0.07	32	0.25	22	0.29	36	0.27
Farrell 1958		66	0.44	32	0.00	82	0.04	68	0.04	61	0.04	80	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		75	0.39	62	0.00	56	0.05	52	0.05	29	0.27	57	0.12
Fliere 1977		9	0.65	66	0.00	20	0.10	15	0.46	10	0.58	13	0.52
Fou 1978		26	0.57	13	0.01	15	0.11	26	0.34	24	0.40	26	0.37
Francois 1956		76	0.39	81	0.00	63	0.05	55	0.05	63	0.04	88	0.04
Friedman 1923		85	0.33	84	0.00	78	0.03	85	0.03	22	0.33	67	0.10
Friedman 1923b		84	0.33	34	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	19	0.36	66	0.10
Friedman 1930		63	0.46	37	0.00	44	0.06	41	0.13	11	0.52	38	0.26
Garcia 2007		82	0.36	67	0.00	79	0.03	82	0.03	13	0.48	58	0.12
Garcia 2007b		77	0.39	33	0.00	80	0.04	73	0.04	4	0.59	46	0.15
Gierzod 1998		13	0.62	56	0.00	16	0.11	13	0.48	3	0.62	12	0.55
Gornostaeva 1994		64	0.46	77	0.00	67	0.04	74	0.04	55	0.04	85	0.04
Groot 1988		43	0.53	39	0.00	43	0.04	42	0.12	57	0.04	74	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		46	0.53	35	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.40	11	0.40	25	0.40
Hatto 1993		7	0.66	6	0.03	5	0.17	2	0.67	3	0.82	2	0.74
Hatto 1997		16	0.61	68	0.00	10	0.13	9	0.54	4	0.64	10	0.59
Horowitz 1949		47	0.52	11	0.01	45	0.05	45	0.09	19	0.35	42	0.18
Indjic 1988		6	0.66	3	0.05	4	0.15	3	0.66	3	0.81	3	0.73
Kapell 1951		18	0.61	19	0.00	21	0.09	14	0.46	11	0.49	20	0.47
Kissin 1993		11	0.64	2	0.12	2	0.16	8	0.56	6	0.64	9	0.60
Kushner 1989		4	0.69	5	0.04	3	0.16	5	0.62	1	0.82	4	0.71
Luisada 1991		5	0.68	21	0.00	8	0.15	7	0.58	2	0.73	6	0.65
Lushtak 2004		17	0.61	50	0.00	23	0.11	23	0.36	9	0.54	22	0.44
Malcuzynski 1961		10	0.65	12	0.01	14	0.09	12	0.50	6	0.53	15	0.51
Magaloff 1978		23	0.59	25	0.00	27	0.07	27	0.31	28	0.25	34	0.28
Magin 1975		8	0.66	4	0.04	9	0.11	10	0.53	1	0.72	7	0.62
Michalowski 1933		29	0.56	10	0.01	12	0.10	16	0.46	2	0.58	14	0.52
Milkina 1970		49	0.51	65	0.00	58	0.04	67	0.04	31	0.25	64	0.10
Mohovich 1999		56	0.49	70	0.00	65	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04	84	0.04
Moravec 1969		36	0.55	24	0.00	17	0.12	22	0.36	4	0.62	18	0.47
Morozova 2008		27	0.57	54	0.00	29	0.08	30	0.27	14	0.37	30	0.32
Neighaus 1950		20	0.60	41	0.00	32	0.07	24	0.35	30	0.28	31	0.31
Niedzielski 1931		71	0.42	30	0.00	49	0.05	47	0.05	9	0.43	45	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		3	0.70	27	0.00	7	0.20	6	0.61	2	0.63	8	0.62
Osinska 1989		65	0.45	85	0.00	71	0.04	66	0.04	61	0.05	78	0.04
Pachmann 1927		86	0.32	58	0.00	75	0.03	80	0.03	49	0.06	81	0.04
Paderewski 1930		24	0.59	22	0.00	37	0.07	35	0.20	7	0.53	28	0.33
Perlemuter 1992		52	0.50	42	0.00	48	0.05	53	0.05	26	0.33	50	0.13
Pierdomenico 2008		61	0.47	82	0.00	57	0.04	62	0.04	12	0.43	51	0.13
Poblocka 1999		14	0.62	57	0.00	11	0.10	17	0.45	8	0.50	19	0.47
Rabcewiczowa 1932		78	0.37	53	0.00	83	0.03	77	0.03	56	0.05	79	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		70	0.42	20	0.00	46	0.05	56	0.05	25	0.30	55	0.12
Rangell 2001		53	0.50	71	0.00	60	0.04	60	0.04	39	0.18	71	0.08
Richter 1976		42	0.53	15	0.01	53	0.05	49	0.05	14	0.39	48	0.14
Rosen 1989		39	0.54	79	0.00	42	0.04	44	0.10	25	0.33	43	0.18
Rosenthal 1930		62	0.46	46	0.00	73	0.04	59	0.04	33	0.31	62	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.34	83	0.00	86	0.04	63	0.04	43	0.12	73	0.07
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.36	55	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	34	0.18	75	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		55	0.49	86	0.00	72	0.04	64	0.04	22	0.36	60	0.12
Rosenthal 1931d		80	0.36	78	0.00	84	0.02	89	0.02	41	0.10	86	0.04
Rossi 2007		88	0.15	87	0.00	88	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03	90	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		87	0.27	17	0.00	87	0.03	84	0.03	42	0.11	76	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		72	0.41	36	0.00	68	0.03	75	0.03	61	0.05	87	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		60	0.47	59	0.00	69	0.04	61	0.04	38	0.20	69	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		40	0.54	45	0.00	35	0.06	38	0.17	14	0.47	35	0.28
Shebanova 2002		2	0.72	7	0.02	6	0.16	4	0.62	3	0.71	5	0.66
Smith 1975		30	0.56	88	0.00	28	0.06	29	0.27	24	0.34	33	0.30
Sokolov 2002		19	0.60	49	0.00	36	0.06	33	0.23	22	0.38	32	0.30
Sztompka 1959		15	0.62	8	0.02	24	0.10	25	0.35	9	0.49	23	0.41
Tomsic 1995		25	0.58	63	0.00	39	0.05	37	0.19	20	0.30	39	0.24
Uninsky 1932		33	0.56	16	0.00	25	0.11	21	0.38	8	0.50	21	0.44
Uninsky 1971		38	0.54	29	0.00	30	0.07	31	0.26	26	0.41	29	0.33
Wasowski 1980		54	0.49	48	0.00	50	0.05	48	0.05	11	0.42	47	0.14
Zak 1937		51	0.50	72	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.15	23	0.36	41	0.23
Zak 1951		50	0.50	44	0.00	34	0.09	36	0.19	22	0.38	37	0.27
Average		1	0.78	1	0.55	1	0.54	1	0.84	1	0.71	1	0.77
Random 1		90	0.03	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	25	0.23	77	0.05
Random 2		91	0.00	90	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	66	0.03	91	0.02
Random 3		89	0.13	91	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	9	0.41	70	0.09

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).