Blumental 1952

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