Paderewski 1930

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		54	0.42	73	0.00	72	0.03	75	0.03	63	0.04	78	0.03
Anderszewski 2003		53	0.42	28	0.00	34	0.05	38	0.15	62	0.03	48	0.07
Ashkenazy 1981		10	0.59	18	0.01	9	0.10	7	0.53	35	0.20	12	0.33
Bacha 2000		71	0.33	85	0.00	85	0.02	87	0.02	70	0.03	87	0.02
Badura 1965		65	0.40	57	0.00	58	0.03	65	0.03	68	0.04	81	0.03
Barbosa 1983		67	0.38	45	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.12	78	0.03	51	0.06
Biret 1990		66	0.40	44	0.00	67	0.03	71	0.03	59	0.04	83	0.03
Blet 2003		15	0.55	2	0.13	3	0.14	6	0.54	12	0.44	5	0.49
Block 1995		11	0.58	7	0.04	10	0.10	9	0.51	14	0.44	6	0.47
Blumental 1952		57	0.42	61	0.00	20	0.08	35	0.17	20	0.32	23	0.23
Boshniakovich 1969		7	0.60	17	0.01	12	0.10	3	0.54	17	0.51	2	0.52
Brailowsky 1960		70	0.34	81	0.00	87	0.02	86	0.02	86	0.02	88	0.02
Bunin 1987		33	0.49	10	0.02	23	0.14	18	0.34	37	0.18	18	0.25
Bunin 1987b		31	0.49	11	0.02	22	0.07	19	0.34	37	0.18	15	0.25
Chiu 1999		78	0.31	53	0.00	65	0.03	74	0.03	65	0.04	69	0.03
Cohen 1997		75	0.32	74	0.00	73	0.03	61	0.03	45	0.10	57	0.05
Cortot 1951		19	0.54	13	0.01	13	0.11	14	0.43	12	0.46	7	0.44
Csalog 1996		68	0.36	51	0.00	86	0.03	82	0.03	67	0.04	75	0.03
Czerny 1949		52	0.42	58	0.00	69	0.03	80	0.03	62	0.04	77	0.03
Czerny 1990		16	0.54	75	0.00	44	0.05	44	0.11	58	0.05	49	0.07
Duchoud 2007		51	0.43	86	0.00	64	0.03	79	0.03	73	0.03	79	0.03
Ezaki 2006		42	0.47	87	0.00	68	0.03	76	0.03	82	0.02	86	0.02
Falvay 1989		48	0.43	77	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	77	0.03	71	0.03
Farrell 1958		50	0.43	8	0.03	26	0.08	28	0.21	29	0.27	20	0.24
Ferenczy 1958		35	0.48	65	0.00	51	0.06	47	0.06	23	0.35	34	0.14
Fliere 1977		6	0.60	34	0.00	14	0.10	10	0.50	41	0.12	19	0.24
Fou 1978		63	0.40	42	0.00	54	0.04	55	0.04	68	0.04	62	0.04
Francois 1956		37	0.48	39	0.00	48	0.05	54	0.05	79	0.03	66	0.04
Friedman 1923		86	0.21	37	0.00	33	0.06	41	0.12	25	0.30	27	0.19
Friedman 1923b		85	0.21	36	0.00	32	0.05	40	0.12	26	0.29	26	0.19
Friedman 1930		55	0.42	3	0.12	2	0.13	11	0.50	9	0.54	1	0.52
Garcia 2007		83	0.25	70	0.00	76	0.04	59	0.04	50	0.06	56	0.05
Garcia 2007b		87	0.17	62	0.00	75	0.02	85	0.02	39	0.20	52	0.06
Gierzod 1998		20	0.52	68	0.00	38	0.06	29	0.20	63	0.04	42	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		29	0.49	69	0.00	52	0.05	50	0.05	50	0.05	58	0.05
Groot 1988		13	0.57	46	0.00	40	0.06	32	0.18	48	0.05	44	0.09
Harasiewicz 1955		60	0.41	49	0.00	39	0.06	36	0.17	66	0.04	47	0.08
Hatto 1993		77	0.31	29	0.00	36	0.06	34	0.18	65	0.04	46	0.08
Hatto 1997		79	0.30	76	0.00	37	0.07	39	0.14	52	0.05	45	0.08
Horowitz 1949		56	0.42	27	0.00	61	0.03	64	0.03	82	0.03	74	0.03
Indjic 1988		76	0.31	22	0.01	35	0.05	33	0.18	57	0.05	40	0.09
Kapell 1951		3	0.62	12	0.02	6	0.13	2	0.55	23	0.43	4	0.49
Kissin 1993		8	0.59	4	0.11	8	0.12	17	0.40	34	0.26	13	0.32
Kushner 1989		23	0.51	55	0.00	46	0.05	52	0.05	65	0.04	63	0.04
Luisada 1991		59	0.41	47	0.00	63	0.03	70	0.03	82	0.03	67	0.03
Lushtak 2004		32	0.49	21	0.01	17	0.10	12	0.45	42	0.14	17	0.25
Malcuzynski 1961		2	0.62	40	0.00	15	0.10	13	0.43	44	0.12	22	0.23
Magaloff 1978		4	0.61	33	0.00	16	0.11	15	0.43	47	0.07	29	0.17
Magin 1975		49	0.43	15	0.01	60	0.03	77	0.03	64	0.04	72	0.03
Michalowski 1933		39	0.47	31	0.00	19	0.10	16	0.41	9	0.45	9	0.43
Milkina 1970		46	0.44	78	0.00	74	0.04	58	0.04	71	0.04	64	0.04
Mohovich 1999		21	0.52	59	0.00	41	0.06	26	0.22	75	0.04	43	0.09
Moravec 1969		27	0.50	20	0.01	49	0.05	51	0.05	30	0.20	38	0.10
Morozova 2008		69	0.35	50	0.00	78	0.03	67	0.03	75	0.03	76	0.03
Neighaus 1950		25	0.51	63	0.00	25	0.07	20	0.34	42	0.13	25	0.21
Niedzielski 1931		58	0.41	14	0.01	56	0.04	57	0.04	50	0.05	61	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		22	0.51	19	0.01	47	0.06	49	0.06	63	0.04	54	0.05
Osinska 1989		14	0.57	48	0.00	18	0.10	21	0.34	19	0.34	11	0.34
Pachmann 1927		64	0.40	16	0.01	24	0.08	24	0.25	32	0.25	16	0.25
Paderewski 1930		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Perlemuter 1992		45	0.46	38	0.00	45	0.05	45	0.11	45	0.12	36	0.11
Pierdomenico 2008		61	0.41	43	0.00	66	0.04	56	0.04	48	0.06	53	0.05
Poblocka 1999		5	0.61	5	0.08	4	0.13	8	0.52	19	0.36	8	0.43
Rabcewiczowa 1932		44	0.47	30	0.00	50	0.06	48	0.06	29	0.29	35	0.13
Rachmaninoff 1923		80	0.29	71	0.00	77	0.03	68	0.03	83	0.03	70	0.03
Rangell 2001		17	0.54	35	0.00	21	0.08	22	0.31	38	0.18	21	0.24
Richter 1976		38	0.48	66	0.00	53	0.07	46	0.07	35	0.17	37	0.11
Rosen 1989		40	0.47	54	0.00	31	0.05	31	0.20	38	0.16	28	0.18
Rosenthal 1930		62	0.41	90	0.00	70	0.03	63	0.03	59	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		82	0.26	88	0.00	81	0.02	84	0.02	73	0.03	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		81	0.27	79	0.00	82	0.03	66	0.03	69	0.03	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		36	0.48	24	0.01	30	0.05	42	0.12	35	0.22	33	0.16
Rosenthal 1931d		72	0.33	82	0.00	80	0.03	81	0.03	60	0.04	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		84	0.24	83	0.00	79	0.04	60	0.04	41	0.09	50	0.06
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.16	80	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	74	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		28	0.50	56	0.00	57	0.03	62	0.03	50	0.07	59	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		43	0.47	64	0.00	55	0.05	53	0.05	48	0.06	55	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		30	0.49	25	0.00	29	0.05	25	0.23	35	0.22	24	0.22
Shebanova 2002		18	0.54	9	0.03	11	0.10	23	0.30	39	0.23	14	0.26
Smith 1975		12	0.57	23	0.01	7	0.13	5	0.54	30	0.27	10	0.38
Sokolov 2002		34	0.48	60	0.00	59	0.03	72	0.03	66	0.04	68	0.03
Sztompka 1959		9	0.59	6	0.06	5	0.17	4	0.54	11	0.48	3	0.51
Tomsic 1995		26	0.50	32	0.00	42	0.06	37	0.15	53	0.05	39	0.09
Uninsky 1932		41	0.47	72	0.00	27	0.06	27	0.22	40	0.12	32	0.16
Uninsky 1971		24	0.51	26	0.00	28	0.07	30	0.20	44	0.15	30	0.17
Wasowski 1980		47	0.43	41	0.00	62	0.03	69	0.03	50	0.06	60	0.04
Zak 1937		73	0.33	89	0.00	84	0.02	83	0.02	88	0.03	90	0.02
Zak 1951		74	0.33	91	0.00	83	0.03	73	0.03	85	0.03	73	0.03
Average		1	0.68	1	0.16	1	0.16	1	0.66	73	0.04	31	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.02	52	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	33	0.18	65	0.04
Random 2		89	0.06	67	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	5	0.43	41	0.09
Random 3		90	0.02	84	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	41	0.12	82	0.03

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).