Moravec 1969

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	0.59	16	0.01	23	0.07	22	0.32	35	0.16	24	0.23
Anderszewski 2003		69	0.37	28	0.00	49	0.05	49	0.05	45	0.10	49	0.07
Ashkenazy 1981		18	0.55	1	0.17	1	0.17	4	0.62	22	0.36	8	0.47
Bacha 2000		60	0.41	70	0.00	68	0.04	73	0.04	53	0.05	61	0.04
Badura 1965		57	0.44	32	0.00	40	0.04	38	0.12	41	0.15	33	0.13
Barbosa 1983		67	0.38	82	0.00	76	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.04	78	0.03
Biret 1990		41	0.47	87	0.00	48	0.05	51	0.05	39	0.16	41	0.09
Blet 2003		42	0.47	83	0.00	67	0.04	58	0.04	76	0.04	67	0.04
Block 1995		44	0.46	51	0.00	62	0.04	61	0.04	50	0.04	69	0.04
Blumental 1952		52	0.45	8	0.05	6	0.12	8	0.50	2	0.60	3	0.55
Boshniakovich 1969		74	0.35	85	0.00	80	0.05	53	0.05	85	0.02	82	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		46	0.46	62	0.00	58	0.04	68	0.04	37	0.15	42	0.08
Bunin 1987		72	0.37	30	0.00	82	0.03	75	0.03	83	0.03	84	0.03
Bunin 1987b		70	0.37	33	0.00	81	0.03	80	0.03	85	0.03	76	0.03
Chiu 1999		66	0.38	48	0.00	41	0.04	40	0.12	38	0.20	30	0.15
Cohen 1997		80	0.28	49	0.00	77	0.03	79	0.03	68	0.04	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		29	0.51	18	0.01	26	0.08	20	0.34	10	0.49	12	0.41
Csalog 1996		28	0.51	46	0.00	33	0.06	31	0.19	25	0.37	22	0.27
Czerny 1949		6	0.62	2	0.13	2	0.14	3	0.65	6	0.73	1	0.69
Czerny 1990		2	0.66	10	0.03	4	0.16	2	0.66	11	0.51	2	0.58
Duchoud 2007		30	0.50	60	0.00	47	0.04	57	0.04	46	0.08	56	0.06
Ezaki 2006		38	0.47	75	0.00	52	0.05	56	0.05	51	0.05	57	0.05
Falvay 1989		9	0.60	15	0.01	20	0.08	15	0.40	23	0.28	17	0.33
Farrell 1958		45	0.46	67	0.00	65	0.03	76	0.03	51	0.04	75	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		55	0.44	35	0.00	30	0.07	35	0.14	38	0.14	32	0.14
Fliere 1977		32	0.50	59	0.00	51	0.05	50	0.05	49	0.06	58	0.05
Fou 1978		59	0.42	40	0.00	57	0.04	63	0.04	64	0.04	64	0.04
Francois 1956		3	0.65	26	0.01	14	0.10	10	0.47	21	0.37	10	0.42
Friedman 1923		86	0.09	64	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	75	0.04	87	0.03
Friedman 1923b		85	0.10	71	0.00	85	0.02	88	0.02	79	0.03	91	0.02
Friedman 1930		83	0.24	73	0.00	56	0.05	54	0.05	42	0.12	45	0.08
Garcia 2007		84	0.17	84	0.00	84	0.02	85	0.02	59	0.04	80	0.03
Garcia 2007b		89	0.03	88	0.00	87	0.02	87	0.02	61	0.04	86	0.03
Gierzod 1998		17	0.56	21	0.01	17	0.10	12	0.43	18	0.34	14	0.38
Gornostaeva 1994		34	0.49	31	0.00	36	0.04	39	0.12	60	0.04	51	0.07
Groot 1988		16	0.57	56	0.00	31	0.07	29	0.20	69	0.03	46	0.08
Harasiewicz 1955		62	0.41	19	0.01	28	0.07	27	0.25	63	0.04	39	0.10
Hatto 1993		79	0.30	65	0.00	35	0.05	36	0.13	43	0.11	34	0.12
Hatto 1997		75	0.34	52	0.00	45	0.04	45	0.08	50	0.05	55	0.06
Horowitz 1949		10	0.59	6	0.06	10	0.08	7	0.51	8	0.50	7	0.50
Indjic 1988		78	0.32	63	0.00	46	0.07	46	0.07	49	0.05	54	0.06
Kapell 1951		5	0.63	20	0.01	16	0.10	18	0.38	29	0.37	15	0.37
Kissin 1993		15	0.57	22	0.01	15	0.10	9	0.48	20	0.37	9	0.42
Kushner 1989		7	0.61	25	0.01	13	0.09	13	0.43	16	0.40	11	0.41
Luisada 1991		43	0.46	50	0.00	19	0.10	28	0.23	38	0.16	26	0.19
Lushtak 2004		73	0.35	58	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	79	0.03	81	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		8	0.61	42	0.00	22	0.09	19	0.37	45	0.10	27	0.19
Magaloff 1978		36	0.48	78	0.00	61	0.04	67	0.04	79	0.03	74	0.03
Magin 1975		71	0.37	89	0.00	50	0.06	47	0.06	48	0.06	53	0.06
Michalowski 1933		81	0.27	41	0.00	54	0.05	55	0.05	45	0.11	48	0.07
Milkina 1970		4	0.63	13	0.02	7	0.09	6	0.53	7	0.47	6	0.50
Mohovich 1999		49	0.45	79	0.00	73	0.04	65	0.04	67	0.04	70	0.04
Moravec 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Morozova 2008		54	0.44	29	0.00	11	0.08	26	0.29	19	0.31	20	0.30
Neighaus 1950		40	0.47	39	0.00	42	0.05	41	0.11	72	0.04	52	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		14	0.58	5	0.06	9	0.08	11	0.44	1	0.64	4	0.53
Ohlsson 1999		19	0.54	14	0.01	18	0.07	16	0.38	27	0.24	19	0.30
Osinska 1989		12	0.58	74	0.00	21	0.08	14	0.42	21	0.30	16	0.35
Pachmann 1927		82	0.24	90	0.00	83	0.03	83	0.03	83	0.02	89	0.02
Paderewski 1930		31	0.50	23	0.01	29	0.07	30	0.20	51	0.05	38	0.10
Perlemuter 1992		65	0.39	55	0.00	74	0.05	52	0.05	68	0.04	62	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		64	0.39	24	0.01	44	0.05	44	0.09	21	0.26	31	0.15
Poblocka 1999		22	0.53	27	0.00	27	0.08	25	0.30	67	0.04	35	0.11
Rabcewiczowa 1932		61	0.41	69	0.00	69	0.03	74	0.03	54	0.05	63	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		33	0.50	9	0.05	12	0.10	17	0.38	18	0.39	13	0.38
Rangell 2001		50	0.45	53	0.00	63	0.03	81	0.03	67	0.03	85	0.03
Richter 1976		53	0.45	86	0.00	71	0.04	71	0.04	60	0.04	65	0.04
Rosen 1989		48	0.46	72	0.00	55	0.06	48	0.06	64	0.04	59	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		35	0.49	36	0.00	53	0.04	62	0.04	36	0.28	37	0.11
Rosenthal 1931		76	0.33	68	0.00	79	0.04	59	0.04	55	0.04	66	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		77	0.32	80	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	53	0.05	72	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		47	0.46	43	0.00	66	0.04	70	0.04	51	0.05	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931d		63	0.40	44	0.00	75	0.04	60	0.04	53	0.04	71	0.04
Rossi 2007		87	0.08	91	0.00	89	0.02	90	0.02	71	0.03	88	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		68	0.37	17	0.01	59	0.04	64	0.04	26	0.33	36	0.11
Rubinstein 1952		21	0.53	11	0.02	34	0.05	33	0.17	34	0.18	29	0.17
Rubinstein 1966		27	0.51	38	0.00	60	0.04	66	0.04	66	0.05	68	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		56	0.44	66	0.00	64	0.03	78	0.03	63	0.04	79	0.03
Shebanova 2002		13	0.58	7	0.05	5	0.12	5	0.55	11	0.50	5	0.52
Smith 1975		39	0.47	61	0.00	43	0.05	43	0.11	63	0.04	47	0.07
Sokolov 2002		37	0.47	47	0.00	37	0.07	37	0.13	58	0.05	43	0.08
Sztompka 1959		25	0.52	4	0.07	8	0.08	23	0.31	41	0.16	25	0.22
Tomsic 1995		26	0.51	37	0.00	39	0.05	34	0.15	60	0.04	44	0.08
Uninsky 1932		51	0.45	34	0.00	38	0.04	42	0.11	60	0.05	50	0.07
Uninsky 1971		58	0.44	81	0.00	72	0.04	72	0.04	74	0.03	77	0.03
Wasowski 1980		20	0.54	45	0.00	32	0.06	32	0.18	19	0.34	23	0.25
Zak 1937		23	0.53	57	0.00	24	0.07	21	0.33	31	0.29	18	0.31
Zak 1951		24	0.52	12	0.02	25	0.09	24	0.31	32	0.26	21	0.28
Average		1	0.69	3	0.12	3	0.19	1	0.69	52	0.05	28	0.19
Random 1		91	-0.10	76	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	72	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		88	0.05	54	0.00	88	0.02	86	0.02	9	0.40	40	0.09
Random 3		90	0.02	77	0.00	90	0.02	89	0.02	40	0.14	60	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).