Rangell 2001

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		30	0.52	30	0.01	34	0.07	24	0.29	47	0.06	38	0.13
Anderszewski 2003		57	0.40	27	0.01	58	0.04	63	0.04	49	0.04	64	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		31	0.50	69	0.00	44	0.06	39	0.18	60	0.04	53	0.08
Bacha 2000		26	0.53	63	0.00	46	0.06	48	0.06	26	0.39	34	0.15
Badura 1965		50	0.44	44	0.00	32	0.06	27	0.27	19	0.38	15	0.32
Barbosa 1983		65	0.39	7	0.04	13	0.08	23	0.29	53	0.05	42	0.12
Biret 1990		23	0.54	41	0.00	43	0.05	40	0.18	35	0.23	30	0.20
Blet 2003		46	0.45	3	0.10	8	0.12	20	0.33	37	0.21	19	0.26
Block 1995		24	0.54	23	0.01	26	0.08	36	0.19	21	0.33	20	0.25
Blumental 1952		84	0.21	79	0.00	87	0.02	84	0.02	79	0.03	88	0.02
Boshniakovich 1969		8	0.59	4	0.09	6	0.14	4	0.60	7	0.61	1	0.60
Brailowsky 1960		20	0.55	42	0.00	23	0.08	21	0.32	16	0.43	14	0.37
Bunin 1987		61	0.39	58	0.00	75	0.03	76	0.03	69	0.04	81	0.03
Bunin 1987b		60	0.40	43	0.00	74	0.03	73	0.03	64	0.04	73	0.03
Chiu 1999		52	0.43	24	0.01	14	0.10	12	0.43	25	0.40	8	0.41
Cohen 1997		64	0.39	33	0.00	30	0.06	45	0.12	13	0.41	26	0.22
Cortot 1951		62	0.39	50	0.00	70	0.03	70	0.03	46	0.08	60	0.05
Csalog 1996		37	0.49	74	0.00	45	0.07	43	0.13	20	0.44	22	0.24
Czerny 1949		76	0.33	39	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	64	0.03	79	0.03
Czerny 1990		33	0.50	66	0.00	60	0.04	53	0.04	78	0.03	83	0.03
Duchoud 2007		19	0.56	6	0.05	15	0.11	22	0.31	40	0.16	25	0.22
Ezaki 2006		9	0.59	18	0.01	12	0.09	8	0.52	26	0.30	12	0.39
Falvay 1989		39	0.48	59	0.00	38	0.07	37	0.19	42	0.09	36	0.13
Farrell 1958		38	0.49	26	0.01	49	0.04	56	0.04	36	0.20	50	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		72	0.36	45	0.00	86	0.02	86	0.02	76	0.03	87	0.02
Fliere 1977		3	0.65	1	0.18	1	0.17	2	0.63	17	0.52	2	0.57
Fou 1978		25	0.53	8	0.04	4	0.14	6	0.53	21	0.43	4	0.48
Francois 1956		58	0.40	82	0.00	73	0.03	69	0.03	78	0.03	84	0.03
Friedman 1923		87	0.14	37	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	58	0.05	68	0.04
Friedman 1923b		86	0.15	25	0.01	82	0.03	78	0.03	73	0.04	82	0.03
Friedman 1930		83	0.22	28	0.01	64	0.04	65	0.04	60	0.04	65	0.04
Garcia 2007		75	0.33	49	0.00	68	0.04	64	0.04	27	0.31	45	0.11
Garcia 2007b		85	0.15	85	0.00	88	0.02	89	0.02	67	0.03	91	0.02
Gierzod 1998		36	0.49	67	0.00	53	0.04	58	0.04	62	0.04	67	0.04
Gornostaeva 1994		11	0.59	51	0.00	19	0.06	15	0.39	16	0.42	11	0.40
Groot 1988		29	0.52	80	0.00	50	0.05	50	0.05	49	0.05	59	0.05
Harasiewicz 1955		56	0.41	15	0.01	20	0.07	17	0.37	43	0.13	27	0.22
Hatto 1993		80	0.29	89	0.00	40	0.06	41	0.17	47	0.06	48	0.10
Hatto 1997		78	0.31	56	0.00	18	0.07	33	0.21	66	0.04	52	0.09
Horowitz 1949		44	0.46	19	0.01	57	0.04	52	0.04	42	0.09	57	0.06
Indjic 1988		81	0.28	86	0.00	41	0.06	42	0.16	62	0.05	51	0.09
Kapell 1951		28	0.52	20	0.01	54	0.04	55	0.04	63	0.04	63	0.04
Kissin 1993		14	0.59	31	0.00	9	0.11	9	0.47	23	0.35	9	0.41
Kushner 1989		18	0.56	73	0.00	25	0.08	34	0.21	32	0.22	29	0.21
Luisada 1991		35	0.49	22	0.01	39	0.08	32	0.24	40	0.15	31	0.19
Lushtak 2004		47	0.44	47	0.00	33	0.06	29	0.26	63	0.04	47	0.10
Malcuzynski 1961		5	0.64	10	0.03	10	0.11	26	0.28	40	0.18	24	0.22
Magaloff 1978		2	0.67	2	0.15	2	0.15	5	0.58	15	0.36	6	0.46
Magin 1975		48	0.44	87	0.00	55	0.04	62	0.04	42	0.12	55	0.07
Michalowski 1933		82	0.23	75	0.00	85	0.02	85	0.02	82	0.03	86	0.02
Milkina 1970		6	0.62	9	0.03	7	0.13	7	0.52	11	0.44	5	0.48
Mohovich 1999		12	0.59	34	0.00	16	0.10	14	0.42	33	0.24	16	0.32
Moravec 1969		45	0.45	29	0.01	66	0.03	67	0.03	81	0.03	69	0.03
Morozova 2008		74	0.35	40	0.00	63	0.04	59	0.04	83	0.03	78	0.03
Neighaus 1950		13	0.59	17	0.01	17	0.07	11	0.43	52	0.06	33	0.16
Niedzielski 1931		69	0.38	81	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03	72	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		10	0.59	13	0.01	24	0.07	19	0.35	38	0.15	23	0.23
Osinska 1989		27	0.53	14	0.01	29	0.06	35	0.20	29	0.22	28	0.21
Pachmann 1927		53	0.43	46	0.00	35	0.05	28	0.26	23	0.37	17	0.31
Paderewski 1930		22	0.54	90	0.00	28	0.06	38	0.18	22	0.31	21	0.24
Perlemuter 1992		71	0.36	54	0.00	59	0.04	61	0.04	71	0.04	62	0.04
Pierdomenico 2008		34	0.49	70	0.00	47	0.06	46	0.06	23	0.25	40	0.12
Poblocka 1999		7	0.60	21	0.01	21	0.07	18	0.37	29	0.25	18	0.30
Rabcewiczowa 1932		54	0.42	38	0.00	69	0.03	68	0.03	42	0.16	56	0.07
Rachmaninoff 1923		77	0.32	71	0.00	72	0.03	71	0.03	73	0.04	71	0.03
Rangell 2001		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Richter 1976		59	0.40	83	0.00	67	0.03	72	0.03	63	0.04	74	0.03
Rosen 1989		4	0.64	12	0.01	5	0.13	3	0.61	10	0.51	3	0.56
Rosenthal 1930		66	0.38	64	0.00	78	0.03	83	0.03	64	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		68	0.38	72	0.00	56	0.05	51	0.05	24	0.34	37	0.13
Rosenthal 1931b		55	0.41	84	0.00	51	0.05	49	0.05	23	0.35	39	0.13
Rosenthal 1931c		42	0.47	60	0.00	52	0.04	54	0.04	31	0.26	49	0.10
Rosenthal 1931d		40	0.47	35	0.00	48	0.06	47	0.06	20	0.35	35	0.14
Rossi 2007		88	0.13	76	0.00	84	0.02	87	0.02	79	0.02	85	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		79	0.30	78	0.00	62	0.03	66	0.03	23	0.36	46	0.10
Rubinstein 1952		21	0.55	52	0.00	27	0.07	10	0.44	15	0.46	7	0.45
Rubinstein 1966		16	0.56	11	0.02	11	0.09	16	0.38	14	0.45	10	0.41
Schilhawsky 1960		73	0.36	48	0.00	80	0.03	77	0.03	68	0.03	77	0.03
Shebanova 2002		15	0.58	16	0.01	22	0.06	13	0.42	28	0.35	13	0.38
Smith 1975		43	0.47	77	0.00	42	0.06	44	0.13	65	0.04	54	0.07
Sokolov 2002		49	0.44	53	0.00	81	0.03	74	0.03	74	0.03	70	0.03
Sztompka 1959		67	0.38	62	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	62	0.04	75	0.03
Tomsic 1995		17	0.56	88	0.00	31	0.05	25	0.28	47	0.05	41	0.12
Uninsky 1932		70	0.37	65	0.00	71	0.03	75	0.03	61	0.05	66	0.04
Uninsky 1971		51	0.43	32	0.00	65	0.04	60	0.04	79	0.03	76	0.03
Wasowski 1980		63	0.39	55	0.00	61	0.04	57	0.04	71	0.04	61	0.04
Zak 1937		32	0.50	36	0.00	37	0.08	30	0.25	57	0.05	43	0.11
Zak 1951		41	0.47	57	0.00	36	0.05	31	0.25	57	0.05	44	0.11
Average		1	0.69	5	0.08	3	0.16	1	0.67	68	0.04	32	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.05	61	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	71	0.03	89	0.02
Random 2		90	0.00	68	0.00	89	0.02	88	0.02	37	0.14	58	0.05
Random 3		89	0.01	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	61	0.03	90	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).