Niedzielski 1931

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