Blet 2003

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		3	0.64	16	0.01	6	0.10	7	0.46	18	0.39	16	0.42
Anderszewski 2003		63	0.43	75	0.00	53	0.05	61	0.05	36	0.20	48	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		26	0.55	29	0.00	22	0.09	18	0.41	40	0.14	31	0.24
Bacha 2000		79	0.33	83	0.00	81	0.04	80	0.04	51	0.06	63	0.05
Badura 1965		56	0.45	61	0.00	46	0.05	60	0.05	17	0.39	40	0.14
Barbosa 1983		4	0.62	3	0.07	2	0.27	2	0.67	2	0.64	1	0.65
Biret 1990		40	0.50	58	0.00	51	0.05	54	0.05	43	0.15	52	0.09
Blet 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Block 1995		66	0.43	17	0.01	54	0.05	53	0.05	42	0.11	60	0.07
Blumental 1952		74	0.36	19	0.00	70	0.04	74	0.04	56	0.04	77	0.04
Boshniakovich 1969		44	0.48	40	0.00	56	0.04	75	0.04	38	0.17	55	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		76	0.36	88	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	75	0.04	79	0.03
Bunin 1987		11	0.59	48	0.00	16	0.08	10	0.46	11	0.46	7	0.46
Bunin 1987b		12	0.59	31	0.00	17	0.11	11	0.46	11	0.46	5	0.46
Chiu 1999		36	0.53	46	0.00	37	0.06	35	0.23	31	0.33	26	0.28
Cohen 1997		88	0.18	76	0.00	88	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.02	89	0.02
Cortot 1951		60	0.44	59	0.00	52	0.05	66	0.05	41	0.14	56	0.08
Csalog 1996		59	0.44	27	0.00	75	0.06	50	0.06	43	0.13	50	0.09
Czerny 1949		58	0.45	77	0.00	59	0.05	58	0.05	48	0.07	62	0.06
Czerny 1990		6	0.61	67	0.00	15	0.08	19	0.40	21	0.31	24	0.35
Duchoud 2007		19	0.57	30	0.00	14	0.08	8	0.46	15	0.47	6	0.46
Ezaki 2006		29	0.54	72	0.00	42	0.07	38	0.17	53	0.05	49	0.09
Falvay 1989		43	0.48	89	0.00	71	0.05	55	0.05	58	0.05	65	0.05
Farrell 1958		53	0.46	23	0.00	68	0.04	72	0.04	41	0.16	54	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		61	0.44	84	0.00	67	0.04	70	0.04	24	0.31	46	0.11
Fliere 1977		2	0.66	42	0.00	3	0.18	3	0.63	12	0.56	2	0.59
Fou 1978		37	0.51	35	0.00	49	0.05	51	0.05	57	0.05	68	0.05
Francois 1956		41	0.49	57	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	52	0.05	70	0.05
Friedman 1923		80	0.33	70	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	12	0.44	39	0.15
Friedman 1923b		78	0.34	12	0.01	60	0.05	62	0.05	15	0.45	38	0.15
Friedman 1930		72	0.38	8	0.02	33	0.07	39	0.16	22	0.40	29	0.25
Garcia 2007		83	0.26	62	0.00	79	0.04	78	0.04	41	0.13	59	0.07
Garcia 2007b		81	0.28	11	0.01	69	0.04	69	0.04	11	0.44	41	0.13
Gierzod 1998		71	0.38	49	0.00	64	0.03	81	0.03	70	0.03	82	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		46	0.48	15	0.01	26	0.06	42	0.13	62	0.04	61	0.07
Groot 1988		15	0.58	9	0.01	34	0.06	29	0.30	42	0.15	35	0.21
Harasiewicz 1955		49	0.47	43	0.00	24	0.07	30	0.29	49	0.04	47	0.11
Hatto 1993		50	0.47	33	0.00	28	0.06	22	0.36	14	0.41	21	0.38
Hatto 1997		42	0.49	20	0.00	30	0.09	25	0.34	19	0.43	20	0.38
Horowitz 1949		64	0.43	36	0.00	72	0.05	63	0.05	58	0.04	74	0.04
Indjic 1988		45	0.48	64	0.00	29	0.10	21	0.37	14	0.39	19	0.38
Kapell 1951		8	0.60	26	0.00	13	0.07	6	0.47	21	0.44	9	0.45
Kissin 1993		31	0.54	18	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.09	47	0.06	58	0.07
Kushner 1989		39	0.50	85	0.00	62	0.06	49	0.06	57	0.04	69	0.05
Luisada 1991		9	0.59	4	0.04	7	0.11	15	0.43	16	0.43	10	0.43
Lushtak 2004		25	0.55	65	0.00	18	0.11	14	0.43	22	0.40	18	0.41
Malcuzynski 1961		28	0.54	14	0.01	44	0.05	43	0.11	63	0.04	57	0.07
Magaloff 1978		65	0.43	86	0.00	55	0.05	59	0.05	55	0.04	72	0.04
Magin 1975		52	0.46	22	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	44	0.12	53	0.08
Michalowski 1933		69	0.38	47	0.00	31	0.09	28	0.30	19	0.41	23	0.35
Milkina 1970		67	0.42	32	0.00	76	0.04	68	0.04	65	0.04	73	0.04
Mohovich 1999		27	0.54	82	0.00	41	0.07	41	0.15	49	0.05	51	0.09
Moravec 1969		51	0.47	66	0.00	66	0.04	76	0.04	58	0.04	71	0.04
Morozova 2008		22	0.56	39	0.00	32	0.09	26	0.30	50	0.05	43	0.12
Neighaus 1950		10	0.59	34	0.00	5	0.11	4	0.55	19	0.46	3	0.50
Niedzielski 1931		68	0.40	38	0.00	73	0.05	64	0.05	46	0.06	66	0.05
Ohlsson 1999		23	0.55	52	0.00	40	0.07	36	0.22	47	0.06	45	0.11
Osinska 1989		54	0.46	90	0.00	63	0.06	47	0.06	78	0.04	64	0.05
Pachmann 1927		55	0.45	78	0.00	57	0.05	67	0.05	31	0.25	44	0.11
Paderewski 1930		24	0.55	6	0.03	11	0.08	12	0.44	6	0.54	4	0.49
Perlemuter 1992		14	0.59	10	0.01	20	0.08	20	0.40	17	0.46	11	0.43
Pierdomenico 2008		73	0.37	37	0.00	77	0.04	79	0.04	67	0.03	80	0.03
Poblocka 1999		7	0.60	41	0.00	9	0.08	9	0.46	10	0.44	8	0.45
Rabcewiczowa 1932		70	0.38	87	0.00	65	0.04	77	0.04	46	0.06	67	0.05
Rachmaninoff 1923		48	0.47	28	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.10	38	0.15	42	0.12
Rangell 2001		57	0.45	5	0.03	12	0.07	37	0.21	20	0.33	28	0.26
Richter 1976		34	0.53	7	0.02	35	0.07	40	0.16	39	0.15	36	0.15
Rosen 1989		47	0.48	79	0.00	48	0.05	52	0.05	62	0.04	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		75	0.36	68	0.00	80	0.05	65	0.05	55	0.04	75	0.04
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.23	91	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	78	0.03	86	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		86	0.21	73	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	84	0.02	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		77	0.35	71	0.00	78	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.03	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		84	0.24	80	0.00	84	0.02	88	0.02	82	0.02	90	0.02
Rossi 2007		87	0.19	55	0.00	87	0.02	84	0.02	82	0.02	85	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		82	0.28	50	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	56	0.04	81	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		62	0.44	60	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	66	0.04	78	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		33	0.53	69	0.00	47	0.07	46	0.07	28	0.32	37	0.15
Schilhawsky 1960		32	0.53	24	0.00	25	0.06	24	0.35	21	0.37	22	0.36
Shebanova 2002		21	0.56	25	0.00	27	0.05	27	0.30	37	0.25	27	0.27
Smith 1975		17	0.58	56	0.00	10	0.07	5	0.49	23	0.34	17	0.41
Sokolov 2002		20	0.56	74	0.00	39	0.09	33	0.25	42	0.17	34	0.21
Sztompka 1959		5	0.61	63	0.00	8	0.09	17	0.42	19	0.43	14	0.42
Tomsic 1995		13	0.59	44	0.00	23	0.09	23	0.35	40	0.17	30	0.24
Uninsky 1932		18	0.57	13	0.01	19	0.10	13	0.44	16	0.40	15	0.42
Uninsky 1971		16	0.58	51	0.00	21	0.10	16	0.42	20	0.44	12	0.43
Wasowski 1980		38	0.50	2	0.08	4	0.11	31	0.28	13	0.40	25	0.33
Zak 1937		30	0.54	21	0.00	38	0.08	34	0.24	37	0.22	32	0.23
Zak 1951		35	0.53	45	0.00	36	0.05	32	0.25	38	0.21	33	0.23
Average		1	0.72	1	0.55	1	0.55	1	0.75	32	0.25	13	0.43
Random 1		90	0.00	54	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	45	0.07	83	0.03
Random 2		91	-0.04	53	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	52	0.05	87	0.02
Random 3		89	0.02	81	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	67	0.03	88	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).