Friedman 1923b

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	0.20	12	0.00	28	0.08	32	0.20	88	0.02	41	0.06
Anderszewski 2003		55	0.17	25	0.00	55	0.05	57	0.05	73	0.03	61	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		13	0.33	6	0.00	20	0.07	19	0.36	83	0.03	32	0.10
Bacha 2000		77	0.05	26	0.00	84	0.02	84	0.02	89	0.02	81	0.02
Badura 1965		32	0.24	27	0.00	23	0.06	27	0.28	63	0.04	28	0.11
Barbosa 1983		58	0.17	28	0.00	66	0.04	76	0.04	82	0.03	72	0.03
Biret 1990		56	0.17	29	0.00	57	0.06	51	0.06	78	0.03	64	0.04
Blet 2003		12	0.34	9	0.00	11	0.08	15	0.45	62	0.05	18	0.15
Block 1995		52	0.18	5	0.00	26	0.06	36	0.16	86	0.02	42	0.06
Blumental 1952		27	0.26	30	0.00	19	0.09	20	0.36	30	0.24	8	0.29
Boshniakovich 1969		43	0.21	31	0.00	37	0.07	34	0.18	61	0.04	36	0.08
Brailowsky 1960		84	0.00	13	0.00	82	0.02	85	0.02	89	0.02	83	0.02
Bunin 1987		16	0.31	32	0.00	16	0.12	14	0.46	44	0.12	10	0.23
Bunin 1987b		15	0.31	33	0.00	15	0.09	12	0.46	44	0.12	9	0.23
Chiu 1999		17	0.30	34	0.00	22	0.07	28	0.27	59	0.04	30	0.10
Cohen 1997		88	-0.07	35	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	90	0.02	89	0.02
Cortot 1951		29	0.26	36	0.00	24	0.06	23	0.32	59	0.05	24	0.13
Csalog 1996		85	-0.01	37	0.00	88	0.03	82	0.03	89	0.02	87	0.02
Czerny 1949		67	0.13	38	0.00	46	0.05	58	0.05	58	0.05	48	0.05
Czerny 1990		34	0.23	14	0.00	9	0.07	13	0.46	63	0.05	19	0.15
Duchoud 2007		10	0.35	15	0.00	12	0.09	11	0.47	51	0.06	16	0.17
Ezaki 2006		48	0.20	16	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	74	0.03	44	0.05
Falvay 1989		86	-0.03	17	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	87	0.02	84	0.02
Farrell 1958		22	0.27	39	0.00	35	0.07	29	0.27	55	0.04	31	0.10
Ferenczy 1958		83	0.00	40	0.00	76	0.04	77	0.04	88	0.02	73	0.03
Fliere 1977		8	0.35	2	0.00	17	0.10	16	0.44	72	0.04	21	0.13
Fou 1978		76	0.08	41	0.00	77	0.04	78	0.04	88	0.02	68	0.03
Francois 1956		74	0.10	18	0.00	51	0.07	47	0.07	72	0.03	51	0.05
Friedman 1923		1	0.99	1	1.00	1	0.99	1	1.00	1	1.00	1	1.00
Friedman 1923b		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Friedman 1930		2	0.68	10	0.00	2	0.73	2	0.82	2	0.78	2	0.80
Garcia 2007		18	0.30	11	0.00	30	0.08	25	0.29	22	0.35	7	0.32
Garcia 2007b		30	0.25	7	0.00	36	0.06	35	0.16	23	0.31	11	0.22
Gierzod 1998		44	0.21	42	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.12	86	0.02	49	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		64	0.16	43	0.00	33	0.06	40	0.12	81	0.03	43	0.06
Groot 1988		59	0.16	44	0.00	48	0.05	63	0.05	85	0.02	79	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		40	0.22	45	0.00	52	0.05	61	0.05	58	0.04	66	0.04
Hatto 1993		24	0.27	46	0.00	54	0.05	59	0.05	87	0.03	65	0.04
Hatto 1997		36	0.23	47	0.00	59	0.05	62	0.05	83	0.03	62	0.04
Horowitz 1949		54	0.18	48	0.00	60	0.05	64	0.05	77	0.03	58	0.04
Indjic 1988		28	0.26	49	0.00	56	0.06	50	0.06	88	0.02	71	0.03
Kapell 1951		39	0.22	50	0.00	29	0.07	30	0.25	41	0.13	13	0.18
Kissin 1993		79	0.03	19	0.00	78	0.04	68	0.04	89	0.02	70	0.03
Kushner 1989		33	0.24	51	0.00	49	0.05	55	0.05	85	0.03	55	0.04
Luisada 1991		51	0.18	52	0.00	68	0.04	69	0.04	75	0.03	67	0.03
Lushtak 2004		31	0.24	53	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.10	88	0.02	63	0.04
Malcuzynski 1961		23	0.27	54	0.00	27	0.07	21	0.35	54	0.05	22	0.13
Magaloff 1978		41	0.22	55	0.00	41	0.05	39	0.12	81	0.03	39	0.06
Magin 1975		38	0.22	56	0.00	42	0.04	45	0.10	74	0.03	47	0.05
Michalowski 1933		7	0.36	57	0.00	6	0.17	9	0.50	29	0.34	6	0.41
Milkina 1970		89	-0.07	58	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	90	0.02	85	0.02
Mohovich 1999		69	0.12	59	0.00	67	0.05	65	0.05	86	0.02	76	0.03
Moravec 1969		73	0.10	60	0.00	65	0.03	79	0.03	88	0.02	82	0.02
Morozova 2008		19	0.29	61	0.00	21	0.07	18	0.38	88	0.02	34	0.09
Neighaus 1950		9	0.35	62	0.00	10	0.09	7	0.51	73	0.04	20	0.14
Niedzielski 1931		49	0.19	63	0.00	32	0.07	33	0.18	39	0.12	17	0.15
Ohlsson 1999		20	0.28	20	0.00	31	0.08	24	0.29	84	0.03	33	0.09
Osinska 1989		62	0.16	64	0.00	62	0.05	60	0.05	85	0.03	53	0.04
Pachmann 1927		66	0.13	65	0.00	74	0.06	52	0.06	78	0.03	59	0.04
Paderewski 1930		42	0.21	3	0.00	25	0.07	26	0.29	40	0.12	12	0.19
Perlemuter 1992		25	0.27	66	0.00	14	0.10	22	0.33	84	0.03	29	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		57	0.17	4	0.00	71	0.06	54	0.06	63	0.04	46	0.05
Poblocka 1999		46	0.20	67	0.00	43	0.04	42	0.11	64	0.04	38	0.07
Rabcewiczowa 1932		68	0.13	68	0.00	58	0.06	49	0.06	70	0.03	54	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		4	0.41	69	0.00	4	0.31	4	0.67	16	0.42	4	0.53
Rangell 2001		65	0.15	70	0.00	63	0.04	73	0.04	78	0.03	77	0.03
Richter 1976		71	0.11	71	0.00	75	0.04	72	0.04	85	0.03	69	0.03
Rosen 1989		6	0.37	72	0.00	7	0.11	8	0.51	70	0.03	26	0.12
Rosenthal 1930		26	0.26	73	0.00	34	0.05	31	0.22	46	0.07	25	0.12
Rosenthal 1931		70	0.12	74	0.00	73	0.06	48	0.06	75	0.03	60	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		60	0.16	75	0.00	61	0.04	67	0.04	67	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		37	0.22	76	0.00	38	0.05	37	0.15	63	0.04	37	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		72	0.10	77	0.00	72	0.04	71	0.04	80	0.02	78	0.03
Rossi 2007		75	0.09	21	0.00	47	0.06	53	0.06	33	0.19	27	0.11
Rubinstein 1939		90	-0.11	22	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01
Rubinstein 1952		91	-0.19	78	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.02	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1966		80	0.03	79	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02	88	0.02
Schilhawsky 1960		11	0.35	23	0.00	18	0.12	17	0.40	46	0.07	15	0.17
Shebanova 2002		61	0.16	80	0.00	64	0.04	75	0.04	85	0.03	74	0.03
Smith 1975		50	0.19	81	0.00	39	0.05	38	0.12	81	0.03	40	0.06
Sokolov 2002		35	0.23	82	0.00	45	0.05	43	0.10	75	0.03	45	0.05
Sztompka 1959		5	0.41	83	0.00	5	0.35	5	0.58	28	0.34	5	0.44
Tomsic 1995		81	0.01	84	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	88	0.01	86	0.02
Uninsky 1932		3	0.43	24	0.00	3	0.34	3	0.67	11	0.48	3	0.57
Uninsky 1971		21	0.28	85	0.00	8	0.13	10	0.50	51	0.06	14	0.17
Wasowski 1980		47	0.20	86	0.00	53	0.05	66	0.05	75	0.04	52	0.04
Zak 1937		53	0.18	87	0.00	69	0.05	56	0.05	79	0.03	56	0.04
Zak 1951		63	0.16	88	0.00	70	0.04	70	0.04	74	0.04	57	0.04
Average		14	0.33	8	0.00	13	0.12	6	0.53	80	0.03	23	0.13
Random 1		82	0.01	89	0.00	81	0.03	81	0.03	18	0.29	35	0.09
Random 2		87	-0.04	90	0.00	83	0.02	87	0.02	58	0.04	75	0.03
Random 3		78	0.03	91	0.00	80	0.03	83	0.03	43	0.10	50	0.05

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).