Czerny 1949

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		9	0.66	29	0.00	3	0.13	7	0.67	3	0.58	8	0.62
Anderszewski 2003		55	0.40	11	0.01	28	0.08	35	0.24	35	0.21	34	0.22
Ashkenazy 1981		53	0.41	50	0.00	50	0.05	54	0.05	72	0.04	67	0.04
Bacha 2000		79	0.27	58	0.00	78	0.02	85	0.02	68	0.03	85	0.02
Badura 1965		38	0.46	77	0.00	45	0.06	45	0.12	33	0.22	37	0.16
Barbosa 1983		56	0.39	70	0.00	61	0.06	49	0.06	47	0.05	59	0.05
Biret 1990		14	0.59	16	0.00	19	0.11	17	0.53	12	0.51	14	0.52
Blet 2003		43	0.45	78	0.00	51	0.07	48	0.07	58	0.05	55	0.06
Block 1995		74	0.31	75	0.00	82	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03	82	0.03
Blumental 1952		44	0.44	24	0.00	21	0.10	30	0.31	12	0.43	22	0.37
Boshniakovich 1969		62	0.37	81	0.00	79	0.02	86	0.02	72	0.03	89	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		59	0.38	61	0.00	76	0.03	72	0.03	69	0.04	72	0.03
Bunin 1987		25	0.53	47	0.00	32	0.09	29	0.33	34	0.22	28	0.27
Bunin 1987b		24	0.53	52	0.00	33	0.14	28	0.33	34	0.21	29	0.26
Chiu 1999		69	0.32	87	0.00	73	0.03	67	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03
Cohen 1997		81	0.20	17	0.00	81	0.03	65	0.03	58	0.04	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		17	0.57	26	0.00	15	0.11	18	0.52	3	0.60	11	0.56
Csalog 1996		76	0.29	73	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03
Czerny 1949		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Czerny 1990		3	0.69	39	0.00	8	0.16	11	0.64	8	0.54	9	0.59
Duchoud 2007		40	0.46	66	0.00	52	0.06	50	0.06	62	0.04	61	0.05
Ezaki 2006		5	0.68	7	0.01	4	0.21	5	0.74	7	0.59	5	0.66
Falvay 1989		19	0.55	18	0.00	29	0.08	24	0.40	38	0.14	31	0.24
Farrell 1958		39	0.46	43	0.00	48	0.05	52	0.05	34	0.23	39	0.11
Ferenczy 1958		18	0.56	9	0.01	16	0.11	21	0.48	9	0.48	17	0.48
Fliere 1977		46	0.44	82	0.00	62	0.04	61	0.04	79	0.03	71	0.03
Fou 1978		66	0.36	15	0.00	37	0.06	44	0.13	73	0.04	50	0.07
Francois 1956		1	0.75	1	0.57	1	0.56	1	0.83	1	0.76	1	0.79
Friedman 1923		85	0.13	88	0.00	59	0.05	57	0.05	45	0.11	52	0.07
Friedman 1923b		86	0.13	83	0.00	60	0.05	58	0.05	58	0.05	62	0.05
Friedman 1930		61	0.37	37	0.00	42	0.06	39	0.15	25	0.38	32	0.24
Garcia 2007		87	0.07	79	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	76	0.03	88	0.02
Garcia 2007b		88	0.07	89	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.02
Gierzod 1998		26	0.52	59	0.00	22	0.09	20	0.48	15	0.37	19	0.42
Gornostaeva 1994		4	0.69	2	0.11	2	0.16	9	0.66	7	0.61	7	0.63
Groot 1988		30	0.52	27	0.00	36	0.07	36	0.23	66	0.03	49	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		33	0.49	13	0.01	20	0.12	16	0.56	27	0.26	21	0.38
Hatto 1993		83	0.18	84	0.00	67	0.04	63	0.04	70	0.04	68	0.04
Hatto 1997		70	0.32	32	0.00	43	0.06	42	0.13	49	0.05	47	0.08
Horowitz 1949		47	0.43	67	0.00	54	0.06	51	0.06	56	0.04	58	0.05
Indjic 1988		82	0.19	85	0.00	65	0.03	66	0.03	71	0.03	79	0.03
Kapell 1951		13	0.60	6	0.04	12	0.15	14	0.56	14	0.47	15	0.51
Kissin 1993		60	0.38	68	0.00	69	0.03	76	0.03	64	0.04	78	0.03
Kushner 1989		27	0.52	63	0.00	39	0.05	37	0.23	39	0.16	36	0.19
Luisada 1991		63	0.37	30	0.00	71	0.03	74	0.03	73	0.04	70	0.03
Lushtak 2004		51	0.41	76	0.00	38	0.06	40	0.15	60	0.04	48	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		15	0.59	44	0.00	13	0.13	10	0.65	20	0.38	16	0.50
Magaloff 1978		42	0.45	28	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.13	70	0.03	53	0.06
Magin 1975		75	0.30	33	0.00	70	0.02	83	0.02	58	0.04	76	0.03
Michalowski 1933		65	0.36	35	0.00	41	0.06	43	0.13	42	0.16	38	0.14
Milkina 1970		36	0.47	12	0.01	27	0.08	33	0.27	43	0.15	35	0.20
Mohovich 1999		23	0.53	31	0.00	31	0.08	25	0.38	41	0.14	33	0.23
Moravec 1969		11	0.62	3	0.05	9	0.23	6	0.73	3	0.65	3	0.69
Morozova 2008		29	0.52	38	0.00	25	0.08	23	0.40	21	0.26	26	0.32
Neighaus 1950		20	0.55	53	0.00	18	0.10	15	0.56	33	0.21	25	0.34
Niedzielski 1931		67	0.35	74	0.00	63	0.03	69	0.03	72	0.03	75	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		31	0.51	34	0.00	44	0.06	38	0.16	51	0.05	44	0.09
Osinska 1989		8	0.66	14	0.01	10	0.15	8	0.67	5	0.62	6	0.64
Pachmann 1927		84	0.18	90	0.00	86	0.03	73	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Paderewski 1930		49	0.42	69	0.00	57	0.04	62	0.04	80	0.03	77	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		54	0.41	86	0.00	56	0.04	60	0.04	56	0.04	64	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		57	0.38	36	0.00	66	0.03	68	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.03
Poblocka 1999		37	0.47	72	0.00	46	0.05	53	0.05	48	0.05	57	0.05
Rabcewiczowa 1932		2	0.70	4	0.05	7	0.21	4	0.74	1	0.79	2	0.76
Rachmaninoff 1923		28	0.52	45	0.00	26	0.11	26	0.37	23	0.35	23	0.36
Rangell 2001		68	0.33	22	0.00	64	0.03	64	0.03	82	0.03	84	0.03
Richter 1976		77	0.29	80	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	65	0.03	86	0.02
Rosen 1989		35	0.48	56	0.00	30	0.08	31	0.30	35	0.21	30	0.25
Rosenthal 1930		21	0.55	21	0.00	24	0.08	22	0.46	8	0.64	13	0.54
Rosenthal 1931		72	0.31	48	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	27	0.23	46	0.08
Rosenthal 1931b		78	0.28	71	0.00	72	0.03	77	0.03	39	0.16	51	0.07
Rosenthal 1931c		32	0.49	51	0.00	34	0.10	32	0.28	11	0.56	20	0.40
Rosenthal 1931d		73	0.31	19	0.00	74	0.03	70	0.03	44	0.08	63	0.05
Rossi 2007		58	0.38	54	0.00	75	0.03	71	0.03	23	0.29	43	0.09
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.24	25	0.00	84	0.03	79	0.03	53	0.05	65	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		64	0.37	62	0.00	77	0.03	80	0.03	63	0.05	69	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.42	46	0.00	55	0.05	55	0.05	55	0.06	60	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		41	0.45	49	0.00	49	0.07	47	0.07	53	0.05	56	0.06
Shebanova 2002		71	0.32	64	0.00	80	0.03	75	0.03	72	0.04	81	0.03
Smith 1975		7	0.68	5	0.05	5	0.16	3	0.75	5	0.61	4	0.68
Sokolov 2002		10	0.63	20	0.00	11	0.16	12	0.64	9	0.48	12	0.55
Sztompka 1959		16	0.59	41	0.00	17	0.15	19	0.49	24	0.39	18	0.44
Tomsic 1995		34	0.49	40	0.00	35	0.10	34	0.25	64	0.04	40	0.10
Uninsky 1932		22	0.54	55	0.00	23	0.09	27	0.37	24	0.26	27	0.31
Uninsky 1971		12	0.62	8	0.01	14	0.14	13	0.61	11	0.51	10	0.56
Wasowski 1980		45	0.44	60	0.00	58	0.05	59	0.05	41	0.15	42	0.09
Zak 1937		52	0.41	91	0.00	53	0.07	46	0.07	48	0.05	54	0.06
Zak 1951		48	0.43	57	0.00	47	0.05	56	0.05	64	0.04	66	0.04
Average		6	0.68	10	0.01	6	0.19	2	0.76	45	0.16	24	0.35
Random 1		91	-0.10	65	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01
Random 2		90	0.04	23	0.00	88	0.02	84	0.02	4	0.45	45	0.09
Random 3		89	0.05	42	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	3	0.51	41	0.10

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).