Rossi 2007

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

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).