Hatto 1997

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		42	0.37	24	0.00	26	0.08	34	0.20	24	0.25	29	0.22
Anderszewski 2003		4	0.60	48	0.00	4	0.27	6	0.55	2	0.63	3	0.59
Ashkenazy 1981		3	0.61	69	0.00	5	0.26	4	0.64	9	0.54	4	0.59
Bacha 2000		21	0.46	26	0.00	44	0.05	43	0.09	24	0.40	31	0.19
Badura 1965		80	0.23	57	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	56	0.04	74	0.04
Barbosa 1983		36	0.38	35	0.00	22	0.10	20	0.37	29	0.38	17	0.37
Biret 1990		9	0.55	5	0.01	10	0.16	10	0.49	5	0.63	5	0.56
Blet 2003		15	0.49	18	0.00	16	0.07	19	0.43	25	0.34	16	0.38
Block 1995		87	0.11	78	0.00	84	0.03	86	0.03	85	0.02	89	0.02
Blumental 1952		28	0.42	58	0.00	28	0.11	24	0.32	17	0.35	22	0.33
Boshniakovich 1969		84	0.22	54	0.00	83	0.04	67	0.04	87	0.02	84	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		57	0.33	62	0.00	75	0.04	58	0.04	40	0.11	56	0.07
Bunin 1987		13	0.50	14	0.00	19	0.12	15	0.45	22	0.36	13	0.40
Bunin 1987b		12	0.50	25	0.00	18	0.09	14	0.45	22	0.37	12	0.41
Chiu 1999		37	0.38	32	0.00	30	0.08	30	0.23	34	0.24	28	0.23
Cohen 1997		60	0.32	79	0.00	67	0.03	76	0.03	26	0.32	43	0.10
Cortot 1951		56	0.33	70	0.00	41	0.05	38	0.13	65	0.04	60	0.07
Csalog 1996		67	0.30	28	0.00	68	0.03	78	0.03	32	0.28	46	0.09
Czerny 1949		59	0.32	33	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	42	0.13	52	0.08
Czerny 1990		44	0.36	85	0.00	43	0.05	44	0.09	51	0.06	59	0.07
Duchoud 2007		7	0.58	27	0.00	6	0.18	9	0.52	10	0.49	8	0.50
Ezaki 2006		19	0.46	63	0.00	20	0.08	11	0.46	23	0.33	14	0.39
Falvay 1989		30	0.41	4	0.01	40	0.06	39	0.12	37	0.14	38	0.13
Farrell 1958		32	0.40	71	0.00	38	0.05	41	0.11	64	0.03	63	0.06
Ferenczy 1958		31	0.41	41	0.00	24	0.07	28	0.26	21	0.38	24	0.31
Fliere 1977		33	0.39	59	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	67	0.04	68	0.04
Fou 1978		34	0.39	29	0.00	58	0.04	64	0.04	49	0.07	65	0.05
Francois 1956		69	0.29	36	0.00	52	0.04	59	0.04	55	0.04	77	0.04
Friedman 1923		82	0.23	60	0.00	87	0.03	81	0.03	76	0.04	88	0.03
Friedman 1923b		81	0.23	72	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	62	0.05	75	0.04
Friedman 1930		61	0.31	16	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.09	51	0.05	58	0.07
Garcia 2007		86	0.19	9	0.00	85	0.03	87	0.03	70	0.03	83	0.03
Garcia 2007b		77	0.26	30	0.00	77	0.04	68	0.04	35	0.23	44	0.10
Gierzod 1998		27	0.42	64	0.00	35	0.07	33	0.20	25	0.23	30	0.21
Gornostaeva 1994		62	0.31	50	0.00	65	0.03	80	0.03	74	0.03	85	0.03
Groot 1988		54	0.33	19	0.00	62	0.04	60	0.04	70	0.03	86	0.03
Harasiewicz 1955		68	0.30	86	0.00	32	0.07	25	0.29	45	0.10	32	0.17
Hatto 1993		2	0.91	2	0.02	2	0.88	2	0.93	2	0.95	2	0.94
Hatto 1997		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Horowitz 1949		49	0.34	37	0.00	61	0.04	69	0.04	46	0.07	66	0.05
Indjic 1988		1	0.94	1	0.90	1	0.89	1	0.95	2	0.96	1	0.95
Kapell 1951		10	0.53	39	0.00	9	0.17	8	0.52	17	0.45	10	0.48
Kissin 1993		74	0.28	80	0.00	66	0.03	77	0.03	52	0.06	72	0.04
Kushner 1989		48	0.35	65	0.00	74	0.03	71	0.03	70	0.04	80	0.03
Luisada 1991		8	0.57	40	0.00	8	0.18	5	0.56	5	0.55	6	0.55
Lushtak 2004		17	0.48	73	0.00	21	0.08	18	0.43	30	0.30	18	0.36
Malcuzynski 1961		35	0.39	17	0.00	57	0.03	75	0.03	58	0.04	81	0.03
Magaloff 1978		53	0.33	81	0.00	34	0.06	40	0.11	38	0.17	36	0.14
Magin 1975		16	0.48	82	0.00	12	0.10	22	0.34	17	0.36	19	0.35
Michalowski 1933		70	0.29	20	0.00	27	0.08	21	0.36	38	0.24	25	0.29
Milkina 1970		29	0.41	7	0.00	51	0.05	54	0.05	45	0.12	48	0.08
Mohovich 1999		45	0.36	13	0.00	39	0.05	42	0.10	32	0.24	34	0.15
Moravec 1969		51	0.34	12	0.00	53	0.05	50	0.05	45	0.08	61	0.06
Morozova 2008		24	0.46	51	0.00	14	0.14	23	0.34	47	0.06	37	0.14
Neighaus 1950		22	0.46	3	0.01	31	0.08	31	0.22	54	0.06	40	0.11
Niedzielski 1931		83	0.22	74	0.00	78	0.03	72	0.03	59	0.04	79	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		5	0.59	46	0.00	7	0.22	7	0.54	8	0.49	7	0.51
Osinska 1989		71	0.29	42	0.00	63	0.03	73	0.03	59	0.05	69	0.04
Pachmann 1927		79	0.25	66	0.00	64	0.03	79	0.03	37	0.18	57	0.07
Paderewski 1930		65	0.30	55	0.00	71	0.05	52	0.05	39	0.14	50	0.08
Perlemuter 1992		85	0.20	83	0.00	82	0.03	85	0.03	73	0.03	78	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		72	0.28	87	0.00	72	0.04	70	0.04	45	0.10	62	0.06
Poblocka 1999		23	0.46	43	0.00	23	0.14	16	0.44	28	0.25	20	0.33
Rabcewiczowa 1932		58	0.32	75	0.00	47	0.05	53	0.05	34	0.22	41	0.10
Rachmaninoff 1923		52	0.33	53	0.00	36	0.06	36	0.13	46	0.06	45	0.09
Rangell 2001		64	0.31	67	0.00	69	0.04	66	0.04	33	0.21	47	0.09
Richter 1976		66	0.30	52	0.00	73	0.03	74	0.03	62	0.04	82	0.03
Rosen 1989		41	0.37	11	0.00	59	0.04	62	0.04	39	0.16	53	0.08
Rosenthal 1930		43	0.37	38	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	60	0.04	67	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		75	0.28	76	0.00	81	0.05	55	0.05	63	0.03	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		73	0.28	88	0.00	80	0.03	84	0.03	52	0.05	76	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		63	0.31	61	0.00	79	0.03	88	0.03	67	0.03	87	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		78	0.25	31	0.00	76	0.04	56	0.04	40	0.10	64	0.06
Rossi 2007		91	-0.11	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	87	0.02	91	0.01
Rubinstein 1939		18	0.47	23	0.00	15	0.08	29	0.24	15	0.42	23	0.32
Rubinstein 1952		76	0.27	56	0.00	60	0.04	57	0.04	38	0.16	55	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		14	0.50	44	0.00	33	0.08	32	0.20	24	0.37	26	0.27
Schilhawsky 1960		40	0.37	34	0.00	25	0.10	26	0.29	33	0.24	27	0.26
Shebanova 2002		39	0.38	21	0.00	54	0.04	63	0.04	36	0.25	42	0.10
Smith 1975		25	0.45	47	0.00	13	0.10	12	0.46	33	0.23	21	0.33
Sokolov 2002		11	0.53	10	0.00	11	0.15	17	0.44	29	0.35	15	0.39
Sztompka 1959		46	0.36	45	0.00	49	0.05	48	0.05	68	0.04	71	0.04
Tomsic 1995		26	0.43	6	0.00	37	0.05	37	0.13	38	0.18	33	0.15
Uninsky 1932		50	0.34	90	0.00	42	0.05	35	0.15	68	0.04	51	0.08
Uninsky 1971		20	0.46	15	0.00	17	0.07	13	0.46	24	0.42	11	0.44
Wasowski 1980		38	0.38	22	0.00	29	0.10	27	0.27	48	0.07	35	0.14
Zak 1937		47	0.36	77	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	64	0.05	70	0.04
Zak 1951		55	0.33	91	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	45	0.12	49	0.08
Average		6	0.59	8	0.00	3	0.30	3	0.76	25	0.31	9	0.49
Random 1		90	-0.02	68	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	64	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	0.07	49	0.00	88	0.03	82	0.03	1	0.49	39	0.12
Random 3		88	0.10	84	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	18	0.36	54	0.08

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).