Ferenczy 1958

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		11	0.54	21	0.01	21	0.09	17	0.41	46	0.08	18	0.18
Anderszewski 2003		22	0.48	8	0.02	6	0.13	10	0.48	21	0.34	9	0.40
Ashkenazy 1981		43	0.39	45	0.00	30	0.07	29	0.27	52	0.05	29	0.12
Bacha 2000		36	0.43	28	0.00	52	0.06	53	0.06	42	0.14	36	0.09
Badura 1965		63	0.31	36	0.00	43	0.05	42	0.12	67	0.04	42	0.07
Barbosa 1983		41	0.41	68	0.00	24	0.09	25	0.30	63	0.04	30	0.11
Biret 1990		27	0.46	50	0.00	35	0.05	27	0.29	45	0.13	16	0.19
Blet 2003		33	0.44	81	0.00	32	0.06	24	0.31	70	0.04	31	0.11
Block 1995		48	0.37	46	0.00	60	0.04	58	0.04	73	0.03	71	0.03
Blumental 1952		58	0.33	16	0.01	10	0.12	26	0.30	24	0.26	14	0.28
Boshniakovich 1969		75	0.26	82	0.00	84	0.03	77	0.03	67	0.03	73	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		29	0.44	11	0.02	51	0.07	49	0.07	48	0.06	46	0.06
Bunin 1987		13	0.53	19	0.01	17	0.12	7	0.48	48	0.06	21	0.17
Bunin 1987b		12	0.53	33	0.00	18	0.15	8	0.48	49	0.06	20	0.17
Chiu 1999		82	0.16	53	0.00	85	0.03	74	0.03	88	0.02	80	0.02
Cohen 1997		53	0.35	3	0.09	25	0.08	32	0.21	27	0.31	15	0.26
Cortot 1951		4	0.59	2	0.10	3	0.21	4	0.54	7	0.57	1	0.55
Csalog 1996		57	0.34	74	0.00	77	0.03	68	0.03	70	0.04	68	0.03
Czerny 1949		7	0.56	30	0.00	9	0.17	9	0.48	21	0.48	3	0.48
Czerny 1990		39	0.42	83	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.13	71	0.04	44	0.07
Duchoud 2007		40	0.41	75	0.00	38	0.05	31	0.22	50	0.06	32	0.11
Ezaki 2006		2	0.61	9	0.02	7	0.16	3	0.56	35	0.15	13	0.29
Falvay 1989		23	0.48	6	0.03	26	0.08	30	0.23	72	0.04	33	0.10
Farrell 1958		25	0.46	69	0.00	39	0.05	40	0.14	52	0.04	41	0.07
Ferenczy 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fliere 1977		64	0.31	76	0.00	83	0.04	64	0.04	80	0.03	60	0.03
Fou 1978		54	0.35	25	0.01	63	0.03	66	0.03	80	0.03	64	0.03
Francois 1956		17	0.51	26	0.00	20	0.09	19	0.39	45	0.09	17	0.19
Friedman 1923		89	0.00	77	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	74	0.04	89	0.02
Friedman 1923b		88	0.00	84	0.00	90	0.02	88	0.02	77	0.04	74	0.03
Friedman 1930		85	0.13	59	0.00	64	0.03	73	0.03	76	0.03	69	0.03
Garcia 2007		81	0.21	62	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.03	70	0.03
Garcia 2007b		86	0.10	56	0.00	76	0.02	84	0.02	69	0.03	88	0.02
Gierzod 1998		30	0.44	42	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.11	79	0.03	48	0.06
Gornostaeva 1994		32	0.44	35	0.00	54	0.07	47	0.07	71	0.03	51	0.05
Groot 1988		26	0.46	79	0.00	49	0.06	50	0.06	86	0.02	76	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		60	0.32	85	0.00	34	0.05	35	0.17	80	0.03	45	0.07
Hatto 1993		74	0.26	51	0.00	37	0.07	37	0.16	59	0.04	40	0.08
Hatto 1997		42	0.41	27	0.00	11	0.12	21	0.38	28	0.26	12	0.31
Horowitz 1949		77	0.26	48	0.00	70	0.03	72	0.03	87	0.02	84	0.02
Indjic 1988		71	0.28	57	0.00	36	0.05	36	0.16	65	0.04	39	0.08
Kapell 1951		1	0.67	1	0.40	1	0.39	2	0.57	13	0.48	2	0.52
Kissin 1993		66	0.31	49	0.00	81	0.02	83	0.02	84	0.03	85	0.02
Kushner 1989		49	0.37	63	0.00	68	0.04	57	0.04	89	0.02	65	0.03
Luisada 1991		56	0.35	54	0.00	65	0.04	59	0.04	76	0.03	59	0.03
Lushtak 2004		18	0.49	14	0.01	15	0.13	15	0.46	56	0.05	23	0.15
Malcuzynski 1961		34	0.43	43	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	86	0.02	66	0.03
Magaloff 1978		55	0.35	64	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	74	0.03	61	0.03
Magin 1975		84	0.14	86	0.00	87	0.01	90	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01
Michalowski 1933		65	0.31	71	0.00	16	0.11	18	0.40	32	0.29	11	0.34
Milkina 1970		28	0.44	7	0.03	55	0.07	48	0.07	74	0.04	49	0.05
Mohovich 1999		10	0.54	5	0.05	19	0.11	12	0.47	51	0.05	24	0.15
Moravec 1969		31	0.44	17	0.01	42	0.05	38	0.14	35	0.14	25	0.14
Morozova 2008		45	0.38	47	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	86	0.02	58	0.04
Neighaus 1950		44	0.38	72	0.00	53	0.06	51	0.06	76	0.04	52	0.05
Niedzielski 1931		76	0.26	87	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	87	0.02	81	0.02
Ohlsson 1999		38	0.42	88	0.00	46	0.05	55	0.05	69	0.04	57	0.04
Osinska 1989		24	0.47	13	0.01	28	0.07	28	0.27	44	0.11	19	0.17
Pachmann 1927		80	0.22	60	0.00	79	0.03	71	0.03	77	0.03	67	0.03
Paderewski 1930		20	0.48	55	0.00	27	0.08	23	0.35	47	0.06	26	0.14
Perlemuter 1992		46	0.38	89	0.00	47	0.05	56	0.05	75	0.03	55	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		73	0.26	65	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03	62	0.03
Poblocka 1999		3	0.61	20	0.01	4	0.17	5	0.52	15	0.39	6	0.45
Rabcewiczowa 1932		16	0.52	23	0.01	12	0.12	14	0.46	18	0.49	4	0.47
Rachmaninoff 1923		78	0.26	39	0.00	67	0.04	60	0.04	60	0.04	56	0.04
Rangell 2001		51	0.36	40	0.00	71	0.03	76	0.03	86	0.02	87	0.02
Richter 1976		47	0.37	90	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	84	0.03	50	0.05
Rosen 1989		50	0.36	38	0.00	62	0.03	70	0.03	83	0.03	72	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		35	0.43	22	0.01	33	0.05	34	0.20	45	0.09	28	0.13
Rosenthal 1931		61	0.32	18	0.01	31	0.06	44	0.11	45	0.09	35	0.10
Rosenthal 1931b		72	0.27	32	0.00	58	0.04	61	0.04	79	0.03	77	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		37	0.43	41	0.00	48	0.06	52	0.06	59	0.04	53	0.05
Rosenthal 1931d		69	0.29	37	0.00	59	0.04	63	0.04	79	0.03	75	0.03
Rossi 2007		83	0.15	66	0.00	66	0.03	67	0.03	75	0.02	79	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		79	0.25	15	0.01	57	0.04	62	0.04	78	0.03	63	0.03
Rubinstein 1952		59	0.33	70	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		19	0.49	24	0.01	40	0.05	39	0.14	58	0.06	37	0.09
Schilhawsky 1960		21	0.48	58	0.00	14	0.09	16	0.44	26	0.32	10	0.38
Shebanova 2002		70	0.29	91	0.00	82	0.03	65	0.03	87	0.02	86	0.02
Smith 1975		6	0.59	4	0.05	2	0.21	1	0.58	20	0.37	5	0.46
Sokolov 2002		14	0.53	44	0.00	23	0.11	20	0.39	51	0.06	22	0.15
Sztompka 1959		9	0.55	73	0.00	8	0.17	13	0.46	26	0.36	7	0.41
Tomsic 1995		15	0.53	12	0.02	22	0.08	22	0.36	79	0.03	34	0.10
Uninsky 1932		52	0.36	67	0.00	29	0.06	33	0.20	78	0.04	38	0.09
Uninsky 1971		8	0.55	10	0.02	5	0.15	6	0.49	33	0.32	8	0.40
Wasowski 1980		67	0.30	80	0.00	69	0.03	78	0.03	56	0.05	54	0.04
Zak 1937		68	0.30	78	0.00	75	0.02	85	0.02	83	0.03	82	0.02
Zak 1951		62	0.32	34	0.00	61	0.03	69	0.03	87	0.02	83	0.02
Average		5	0.59	31	0.00	13	0.13	11	0.48	76	0.04	27	0.14
Random 1		91	-0.12	61	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	88	0.02	91	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.04	52	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	32	0.20	47	0.06
Random 3		87	0.00	29	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	29	0.28	43	0.07

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).