Csalog 1996

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		17	0.50	38	0.00	39	0.06	39	0.21	61	0.04	40	0.09
Anderszewski 2003		77	0.17	28	0.00	52	0.07	46	0.07	76	0.03	48	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		49	0.37	79	0.00	32	0.09	30	0.29	76	0.03	41	0.09
Bacha 2000		25	0.47	66	0.00	38	0.06	36	0.25	48	0.06	27	0.12
Badura 1965		53	0.34	72	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.26	60	0.04	34	0.10
Barbosa 1983		30	0.44	9	0.04	16	0.12	22	0.41	32	0.35	11	0.38
Biret 1990		4	0.55	23	0.00	6	0.18	10	0.53	27	0.38	7	0.45
Blet 2003		29	0.44	67	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.13	50	0.06	38	0.09
Block 1995		58	0.31	18	0.01	75	0.04	66	0.04	84	0.02	73	0.03
Blumental 1952		81	0.11	73	0.00	83	0.02	82	0.02	89	0.01	89	0.01
Boshniakovich 1969		54	0.33	34	0.00	63	0.06	51	0.06	82	0.03	58	0.04
Brailowsky 1960		44	0.39	35	0.00	33	0.06	38	0.22	52	0.05	33	0.10
Bunin 1987		68	0.27	50	0.00	69	0.04	65	0.04	78	0.03	74	0.03
Bunin 1987b		67	0.27	48	0.00	68	0.04	71	0.04	80	0.03	67	0.03
Chiu 1999		38	0.42	15	0.01	18	0.13	14	0.50	37	0.20	15	0.32
Cohen 1997		23	0.47	21	0.01	9	0.09	13	0.50	6	0.52	4	0.51
Cortot 1951		57	0.32	26	0.00	73	0.04	64	0.04	84	0.03	75	0.03
Csalog 1996		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1949		62	0.29	80	0.00	66	0.03	74	0.03	81	0.03	71	0.03
Czerny 1990		47	0.37	39	0.00	59	0.06	52	0.06	69	0.04	49	0.05
Duchoud 2007		16	0.50	12	0.02	13	0.11	8	0.55	36	0.22	14	0.35
Ezaki 2006		55	0.33	74	0.00	64	0.04	69	0.04	81	0.03	62	0.03
Falvay 1989		7	0.53	30	0.00	12	0.14	9	0.53	57	0.05	22	0.16
Farrell 1958		32	0.43	33	0.00	56	0.04	68	0.04	76	0.03	66	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		52	0.34	88	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.03	69	0.03
Fliere 1977		20	0.49	49	0.00	31	0.11	24	0.39	60	0.05	25	0.14
Fou 1978		34	0.43	27	0.00	29	0.11	23	0.41	54	0.05	26	0.14
Francois 1956		31	0.43	40	0.00	42	0.08	42	0.16	46	0.06	36	0.10
Friedman 1923		91	-0.03	75	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	84	0.03	86	0.02
Friedman 1923b		90	-0.01	84	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	82	0.03	83	0.02
Friedman 1930		84	0.03	42	0.00	81	0.02	84	0.02	89	0.01	88	0.01
Garcia 2007		80	0.13	76	0.00	78	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.02	80	0.02
Garcia 2007b		85	0.02	89	0.00	80	0.02	85	0.02	78	0.02	85	0.02
Gierzod 1998		46	0.38	85	0.00	51	0.05	59	0.05	84	0.02	72	0.03
Gornostaeva 1994		39	0.41	54	0.00	62	0.06	54	0.06	77	0.03	60	0.04
Groot 1988		9	0.53	24	0.00	20	0.08	29	0.31	55	0.04	32	0.11
Harasiewicz 1955		76	0.18	58	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	86	0.02	76	0.03
Hatto 1993		70	0.25	86	0.00	28	0.10	35	0.26	64	0.04	35	0.10
Hatto 1997		61	0.30	43	0.00	25	0.07	32	0.28	78	0.03	39	0.09
Horowitz 1949		42	0.40	44	0.00	49	0.06	55	0.06	79	0.03	53	0.04
Indjic 1988		66	0.27	64	0.00	24	0.07	31	0.29	54	0.05	28	0.12
Kapell 1951		28	0.45	68	0.00	37	0.06	40	0.17	68	0.04	42	0.08
Kissin 1993		22	0.47	7	0.04	8	0.10	6	0.57	45	0.16	17	0.30
Kushner 1989		33	0.43	25	0.00	45	0.06	44	0.12	81	0.03	45	0.06
Luisada 1991		59	0.31	29	0.00	26	0.10	28	0.31	49	0.06	24	0.14
Lushtak 2004		41	0.40	14	0.01	27	0.07	21	0.43	52	0.05	23	0.15
Malcuzynski 1961		37	0.42	60	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	69	0.04	52	0.04
Magaloff 1978		26	0.46	45	0.00	34	0.06	27	0.33	58	0.04	30	0.11
Magin 1975		74	0.20	57	0.00	50	0.06	56	0.06	84	0.03	51	0.04
Michalowski 1933		79	0.14	41	0.00	65	0.05	60	0.05	84	0.03	54	0.04
Milkina 1970		13	0.52	69	0.00	17	0.11	15	0.50	42	0.15	20	0.27
Mohovich 1999		36	0.42	61	0.00	54	0.07	48	0.07	88	0.02	59	0.04
Moravec 1969		15	0.51	36	0.00	21	0.07	25	0.37	31	0.19	19	0.27
Morozova 2008		71	0.23	51	0.00	44	0.06	45	0.12	77	0.03	46	0.06
Neighaus 1950		40	0.40	56	0.00	55	0.05	62	0.05	65	0.04	61	0.04
Niedzielski 1931		35	0.42	37	0.00	41	0.06	41	0.16	45	0.07	31	0.11
Ohlsson 1999		6	0.55	3	0.07	4	0.15	7	0.56	22	0.29	9	0.40
Osinska 1989		8	0.53	17	0.01	11	0.10	11	0.53	35	0.16	18	0.29
Pachmann 1927		14	0.52	10	0.03	14	0.10	18	0.46	17	0.50	6	0.48
Paderewski 1930		50	0.36	55	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	82	0.03	68	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		63	0.29	31	0.00	58	0.05	61	0.05	85	0.02	63	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.33	87	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	70	0.03	47	0.05
Poblocka 1999		2	0.61	2	0.09	3	0.19	2	0.60	9	0.45	3	0.52
Rabcewiczowa 1932		64	0.28	82	0.00	74	0.05	63	0.05	83	0.02	65	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		78	0.16	70	0.00	77	0.02	80	0.02	87	0.02	77	0.02
Rangell 2001		18	0.49	71	0.00	30	0.12	20	0.44	43	0.13	21	0.24
Richter 1976		21	0.48	11	0.02	19	0.08	16	0.49	34	0.19	16	0.31
Rosen 1989		27	0.45	8	0.04	35	0.06	37	0.24	78	0.03	43	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.22	62	0.00	84	0.03	77	0.03	90	0.01	81	0.02
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.09	77	0.00	88	0.02	81	0.02	91	0.01	87	0.01
Rosenthal 1931b		82	0.10	90	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.01	91	0.01
Rosenthal 1931c		69	0.26	65	0.00	76	0.03	73	0.03	88	0.02	84	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		75	0.19	91	0.00	79	0.02	83	0.02	90	0.01	90	0.01
Rossi 2007		86	0.01	53	0.00	82	0.03	79	0.03	55	0.03	64	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		45	0.38	5	0.05	5	0.13	26	0.35	13	0.43	10	0.39
Rubinstein 1952		1	0.63	1	0.33	1	0.33	1	0.62	6	0.59	1	0.60
Rubinstein 1966		10	0.53	22	0.01	22	0.08	17	0.47	32	0.29	12	0.37
Schilhawsky 1960		48	0.37	81	0.00	53	0.06	49	0.06	82	0.03	56	0.04
Shebanova 2002		3	0.60	4	0.07	2	0.24	3	0.59	10	0.50	2	0.54
Smith 1975		65	0.27	59	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	85	0.02	78	0.02
Sokolov 2002		43	0.39	19	0.01	46	0.06	50	0.06	68	0.03	50	0.04
Sztompka 1959		60	0.30	52	0.00	72	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.02	79	0.02
Tomsic 1995		24	0.47	63	0.00	40	0.07	33	0.27	74	0.03	37	0.09
Uninsky 1932		72	0.23	46	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	70	0.04	70	0.03
Uninsky 1971		51	0.34	6	0.05	48	0.06	53	0.06	65	0.03	55	0.04
Wasowski 1980		12	0.52	16	0.01	10	0.10	12	0.53	10	0.44	5	0.48
Zak 1937		11	0.53	13	0.02	7	0.11	4	0.58	28	0.32	8	0.43
Zak 1951		19	0.49	20	0.01	15	0.12	5	0.57	37	0.21	13	0.35
Average		5	0.55	32	0.00	23	0.09	19	0.45	86	0.03	29	0.12
Random 1		87	0.00	83	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	28	0.22	44	0.07
Random 2		89	-0.01	47	0.00	86	0.02	90	0.02	45	0.09	57	0.04
Random 3		88	-0.01	78	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	73	0.03	82	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).