Malcuzynski 1961

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		14	0.67	22	0.01	25	0.08	17	0.40	11	0.47	23	0.43
Anderszewski 2003		70	0.47	21	0.01	56	0.04	62	0.04	31	0.24	60	0.10
Ashkenazy 1981		20	0.65	4	0.02	11	0.11	6	0.53	12	0.50	12	0.51
Bacha 2000		61	0.50	78	0.00	78	0.03	72	0.03	35	0.25	62	0.09
Badura 1965		58	0.52	61	0.00	40	0.08	36	0.22	5	0.61	31	0.37
Barbosa 1983		73	0.43	47	0.00	73	0.03	78	0.03	49	0.05	78	0.04
Biret 1990		60	0.52	90	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	62	0.04	88	0.03
Blet 2003		54	0.54	38	0.00	64	0.04	63	0.04	43	0.11	69	0.07
Block 1995		26	0.63	34	0.00	31	0.05	35	0.23	8	0.54	32	0.35
Blumental 1952		77	0.40	27	0.00	49	0.04	57	0.04	21	0.30	56	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		16	0.66	14	0.01	18	0.08	21	0.37	5	0.67	15	0.50
Brailowsky 1960		50	0.55	69	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	33	0.18	67	0.07
Bunin 1987		21	0.65	37	0.00	32	0.05	25	0.36	9	0.52	24	0.43
Bunin 1987b		19	0.65	19	0.01	33	0.08	24	0.36	9	0.51	22	0.43
Chiu 1999		74	0.43	53	0.00	65	0.04	68	0.04	43	0.15	66	0.08
Cohen 1997		82	0.30	36	0.00	86	0.03	83	0.03	70	0.04	87	0.03
Cortot 1951		63	0.50	58	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	32	0.25	65	0.09
Csalog 1996		75	0.42	57	0.00	87	0.04	69	0.04	58	0.05	79	0.04
Czerny 1949		38	0.59	59	0.00	22	0.05	20	0.38	10	0.65	14	0.50
Czerny 1990		10	0.71	52	0.00	10	0.12	8	0.53	6	0.59	8	0.56
Duchoud 2007		59	0.52	64	0.00	72	0.02	87	0.02	53	0.05	86	0.03
Ezaki 2006		5	0.73	28	0.00	5	0.14	5	0.57	5	0.65	4	0.61
Falvay 1989		36	0.60	73	0.00	37	0.07	39	0.19	24	0.27	41	0.23
Farrell 1958		62	0.50	54	0.00	81	0.03	74	0.03	54	0.04	82	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		72	0.43	55	0.00	85	0.02	86	0.02	54	0.05	84	0.03
Fliere 1977		7	0.72	6	0.01	9	0.11	11	0.49	15	0.54	11	0.51
Fou 1978		30	0.62	20	0.01	20	0.07	26	0.36	13	0.48	25	0.42
Francois 1956		18	0.65	51	0.00	14	0.09	18	0.40	11	0.50	20	0.45
Friedman 1923		84	0.27	74	0.00	79	0.03	76	0.03	20	0.35	61	0.10
Friedman 1923b		83	0.27	71	0.00	80	0.05	54	0.05	21	0.35	51	0.13
Friedman 1930		76	0.40	33	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	20	0.45	49	0.13
Garcia 2007		85	0.26	72	0.00	84	0.03	84	0.03	56	0.05	80	0.04
Garcia 2007b		87	0.25	44	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	38	0.21	72	0.06
Gierzod 1998		13	0.68	12	0.01	12	0.12	9	0.51	2	0.66	6	0.58
Gornostaeva 1994		8	0.72	16	0.01	8	0.13	12	0.47	10	0.58	10	0.52
Groot 1988		6	0.73	24	0.01	15	0.09	15	0.42	10	0.48	19	0.45
Harasiewicz 1955		40	0.59	23	0.01	2	0.19	4	0.60	3	0.56	7	0.58
Hatto 1993		81	0.36	75	0.00	59	0.05	50	0.05	67	0.04	81	0.04
Hatto 1997		78	0.39	8	0.01	58	0.04	58	0.04	75	0.03	83	0.03
Horowitz 1949		23	0.64	9	0.01	19	0.07	19	0.39	6	0.51	18	0.45
Indjic 1988		79	0.38	50	0.00	57	0.04	67	0.04	56	0.05	77	0.04
Kapell 1951		31	0.62	49	0.00	54	0.06	47	0.06	40	0.13	64	0.09
Kissin 1993		4	0.73	3	0.05	4	0.14	2	0.64	4	0.68	2	0.66
Kushner 1989		3	0.75	13	0.01	6	0.16	7	0.53	4	0.69	5	0.60
Luisada 1991		56	0.53	81	0.00	68	0.04	65	0.04	61	0.05	74	0.04
Lushtak 2004		41	0.59	17	0.01	36	0.07	30	0.29	13	0.50	29	0.38
Malcuzynski 1961		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Magaloff 1978		2	0.79	5	0.01	3	0.26	3	0.64	3	0.63	3	0.63
Magin 1975		27	0.63	2	0.06	7	0.12	14	0.43	3	0.58	13	0.50
Michalowski 1933		80	0.36	76	0.00	67	0.03	73	0.03	49	0.06	76	0.04
Milkina 1970		25	0.63	82	0.00	53	0.05	48	0.05	33	0.22	59	0.10
Mohovich 1999		17	0.66	79	0.00	30	0.07	32	0.27	16	0.46	33	0.35
Moravec 1969		32	0.61	56	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.10	19	0.37	45	0.19
Morozova 2008		48	0.56	29	0.00	38	0.07	31	0.27	17	0.36	37	0.31
Neighaus 1950		12	0.70	70	0.00	16	0.10	10	0.51	10	0.57	9	0.54
Niedzielski 1931		67	0.48	15	0.01	48	0.05	52	0.05	27	0.19	58	0.10
Ohlsson 1999		24	0.63	41	0.00	52	0.04	56	0.04	39	0.13	68	0.07
Osinska 1989		43	0.58	91	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	24	0.25	55	0.11
Pachmann 1927		66	0.48	84	0.00	63	0.04	55	0.04	27	0.34	53	0.12
Paderewski 1930		29	0.62	39	0.00	44	0.06	44	0.12	13	0.43	42	0.23
Perlemuter 1992		46	0.57	26	0.00	34	0.07	33	0.26	19	0.44	34	0.34
Pierdomenico 2008		51	0.54	65	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.14	14	0.40	40	0.24
Poblocka 1999		42	0.58	40	0.00	50	0.07	46	0.07	51	0.05	70	0.06
Rabcewiczowa 1932		64	0.50	85	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	30	0.26	63	0.09
Rachmaninoff 1923		55	0.53	30	0.00	27	0.05	34	0.25	15	0.43	35	0.33
Rangell 2001		22	0.64	77	0.00	21	0.06	40	0.18	26	0.28	44	0.22
Richter 1976		49	0.56	10	0.01	47	0.05	51	0.05	27	0.29	52	0.12
Rosen 1989		15	0.66	67	0.00	24	0.08	23	0.36	9	0.55	21	0.44
Rosenthal 1930		52	0.54	62	0.00	61	0.04	64	0.04	21	0.46	47	0.14
Rosenthal 1931		69	0.47	89	0.00	55	0.04	59	0.04	8	0.57	46	0.15
Rosenthal 1931b		71	0.46	80	0.00	62	0.04	60	0.04	12	0.49	48	0.14
Rosenthal 1931c		34	0.61	35	0.00	35	0.07	29	0.29	9	0.61	27	0.42
Rosenthal 1931d		65	0.49	83	0.00	66	0.04	71	0.04	17	0.38	54	0.12
Rossi 2007		86	0.25	86	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	15	0.35	57	0.10
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.23	87	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	81	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		53	0.54	45	0.00	70	0.03	82	0.03	41	0.13	71	0.06
Rubinstein 1966		57	0.53	66	0.00	76	0.04	70	0.04	47	0.07	73	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		47	0.57	42	0.00	42	0.07	41	0.15	15	0.43	39	0.25
Shebanova 2002		33	0.61	43	0.00	46	0.05	49	0.05	30	0.34	50	0.13
Smith 1975		28	0.63	46	0.00	23	0.08	22	0.37	18	0.38	30	0.37
Sokolov 2002		11	0.70	18	0.01	13	0.08	16	0.40	5	0.52	17	0.46
Sztompka 1959		35	0.61	31	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.12	23	0.40	43	0.22
Tomsic 1995		9	0.72	63	0.00	17	0.18	13	0.45	7	0.54	16	0.49
Uninsky 1932		44	0.57	25	0.00	28	0.05	27	0.34	6	0.52	26	0.42
Uninsky 1971		37	0.60	7	0.01	29	0.07	37	0.21	19	0.45	36	0.31
Wasowski 1980		68	0.48	48	0.00	82	0.04	61	0.04	66	0.04	75	0.04
Zak 1937		45	0.57	88	0.00	39	0.06	38	0.20	18	0.40	38	0.28
Zak 1951		39	0.59	11	0.01	26	0.06	28	0.33	11	0.51	28	0.41
Average		1	0.85	1	0.62	1	0.61	1	0.81	3	0.66	1	0.73
Random 1		91	-0.05	60	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	75	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.01	32	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	51	0.05	85	0.03
Random 3		89	0.03	68	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	53	0.03	91	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).