Schilhawsky 1960

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		50	0.44	46	0.00	58	0.05	55	0.05	65	0.04	66	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		25	0.50	2	0.21	2	0.21	13	0.49	19	0.46	8	0.47
Ashkenazy 1981		15	0.54	66	0.00	15	0.10	14	0.47	38	0.17	21	0.28
Bacha 2000		64	0.37	37	0.00	64	0.03	70	0.03	50	0.06	56	0.04
Badura 1965		54	0.41	25	0.00	52	0.06	50	0.06	37	0.19	45	0.11
Barbosa 1983		16	0.54	23	0.01	23	0.08	19	0.39	23	0.42	13	0.40
Biret 1990		40	0.46	54	0.00	33	0.06	32	0.24	30	0.26	26	0.25
Blet 2003		17	0.53	27	0.00	19	0.07	21	0.37	24	0.35	16	0.36
Block 1995		56	0.40	22	0.01	30	0.06	42	0.17	47	0.04	49	0.08
Blumental 1952		67	0.37	20	0.01	51	0.05	56	0.05	26	0.25	46	0.11
Boshniakovich 1969		41	0.45	17	0.01	32	0.07	39	0.18	41	0.16	35	0.17
Brailowsky 1960		57	0.40	39	0.00	71	0.03	76	0.03	79	0.03	71	0.03
Bunin 1987		3	0.61	7	0.03	4	0.16	3	0.62	6	0.56	3	0.59
Bunin 1987b		4	0.61	4	0.06	5	0.27	4	0.62	6	0.56	2	0.59
Chiu 1999		51	0.42	34	0.00	54	0.06	48	0.06	62	0.04	55	0.05
Cohen 1997		87	0.23	77	0.00	86	0.03	71	0.03	65	0.04	81	0.03
Cortot 1951		35	0.47	51	0.00	46	0.06	49	0.06	26	0.32	41	0.14
Csalog 1996		66	0.37	70	0.00	72	0.03	82	0.03	49	0.06	63	0.04
Czerny 1949		43	0.45	91	0.00	50	0.05	53	0.05	47	0.07	52	0.06
Czerny 1990		29	0.48	57	0.00	40	0.08	30	0.27	54	0.05	43	0.12
Duchoud 2007		36	0.46	71	0.00	43	0.06	43	0.16	38	0.19	34	0.17
Ezaki 2006		24	0.51	67	0.00	39	0.08	28	0.28	67	0.04	44	0.11
Falvay 1989		58	0.40	45	0.00	67	0.03	74	0.03	80	0.03	72	0.03
Farrell 1958		60	0.39	72	0.00	66	0.03	73	0.03	78	0.03	73	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		30	0.48	62	0.00	37	0.06	26	0.32	16	0.44	14	0.38
Fliere 1977		13	0.54	65	0.00	34	0.06	29	0.28	50	0.06	42	0.13
Fou 1978		72	0.35	52	0.00	78	0.04	64	0.04	66	0.04	59	0.04
Francois 1956		20	0.52	49	0.00	36	0.06	37	0.20	42	0.15	37	0.17
Friedman 1923		81	0.33	30	0.00	55	0.07	47	0.07	17	0.38	40	0.16
Friedman 1923b		73	0.35	18	0.01	53	0.07	46	0.07	17	0.40	36	0.17
Friedman 1930		32	0.47	12	0.01	26	0.11	17	0.41	15	0.49	12	0.45
Garcia 2007		84	0.24	38	0.00	70	0.03	81	0.03	44	0.11	53	0.06
Garcia 2007b		86	0.23	40	0.00	80	0.03	78	0.03	59	0.04	86	0.03
Gierzod 1998		18	0.53	41	0.00	35	0.06	31	0.26	42	0.10	39	0.16
Gornostaeva 1994		47	0.44	58	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03
Groot 1988		21	0.52	73	0.00	41	0.08	40	0.18	75	0.03	51	0.07
Harasiewicz 1955		9	0.55	16	0.01	11	0.12	8	0.52	30	0.24	18	0.35
Hatto 1993		77	0.33	60	0.00	18	0.07	38	0.20	35	0.19	33	0.19
Hatto 1997		65	0.37	14	0.01	12	0.10	33	0.24	26	0.29	23	0.26
Horowitz 1949		10	0.55	3	0.07	14	0.10	7	0.52	11	0.41	9	0.46
Indjic 1988		74	0.34	42	0.00	17	0.09	36	0.21	25	0.28	27	0.24
Kapell 1951		2	0.64	6	0.03	3	0.28	2	0.65	8	0.53	1	0.59
Kissin 1993		62	0.38	78	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03	75	0.03
Kushner 1989		33	0.47	33	0.00	56	0.04	60	0.04	63	0.04	60	0.04
Luisada 1991		59	0.39	87	0.00	68	0.03	67	0.03	84	0.03	70	0.03
Lushtak 2004		5	0.58	8	0.03	6	0.27	6	0.57	15	0.48	4	0.52
Malcuzynski 1961		7	0.57	32	0.00	16	0.12	15	0.43	41	0.15	25	0.25
Magaloff 1978		22	0.51	13	0.01	29	0.09	24	0.34	60	0.03	47	0.10
Magin 1975		71	0.35	83	0.00	48	0.05	58	0.05	73	0.03	57	0.04
Michalowski 1933		39	0.46	10	0.02	13	0.09	10	0.51	10	0.45	6	0.48
Milkina 1970		75	0.34	36	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	68	0.04	74	0.03
Mohovich 1999		37	0.46	64	0.00	47	0.05	52	0.05	78	0.03	67	0.04
Moravec 1969		49	0.44	59	0.00	63	0.04	63	0.04	78	0.03	69	0.03
Morozova 2008		48	0.44	44	0.00	49	0.05	51	0.05	56	0.04	64	0.04
Neighaus 1950		28	0.49	53	0.00	38	0.06	34	0.22	63	0.05	48	0.10
Niedzielski 1931		53	0.42	11	0.02	45	0.07	44	0.15	10	0.42	24	0.25
Ohlsson 1999		12	0.54	50	0.00	25	0.10	18	0.40	45	0.09	32	0.19
Osinska 1989		46	0.44	61	0.00	59	0.05	59	0.05	53	0.06	54	0.05
Pachmann 1927		69	0.36	74	0.00	62	0.05	54	0.05	63	0.04	62	0.04
Paderewski 1930		27	0.49	5	0.04	31	0.06	35	0.22	25	0.23	28	0.22
Perlemuter 1992		26	0.49	19	0.01	28	0.08	20	0.38	44	0.12	29	0.21
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.30	88	0.00	82	0.02	87	0.02	80	0.03	88	0.02
Poblocka 1999		8	0.56	21	0.01	7	0.20	9	0.52	13	0.42	7	0.47
Rabcewiczowa 1932		68	0.37	63	0.00	77	0.03	72	0.03	48	0.05	58	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		42	0.45	84	0.00	27	0.07	23	0.36	31	0.22	20	0.28
Rangell 2001		70	0.36	79	0.00	79	0.03	68	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03
Richter 1976		31	0.48	24	0.01	22	0.08	25	0.33	21	0.34	19	0.33
Rosen 1989		63	0.37	68	0.00	76	0.03	84	0.03	81	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		55	0.40	75	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	53	0.04	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		78	0.33	80	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	58	0.04	76	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.33	89	0.00	75	0.03	77	0.03	62	0.04	85	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		45	0.44	69	0.00	60	0.04	61	0.04	39	0.16	50	0.08
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.34	28	0.00	65	0.03	66	0.03	51	0.04	84	0.03
Rossi 2007		85	0.23	56	0.00	83	0.02	86	0.02	58	0.03	87	0.02
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.13	26	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	80	0.03	89	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		82	0.30	47	0.00	87	0.04	65	0.04	67	0.04	68	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		79	0.33	48	0.00	85	0.03	69	0.03	86	0.03	77	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Shebanova 2002		61	0.38	43	0.00	57	0.04	62	0.04	62	0.05	65	0.04
Smith 1975		11	0.55	29	0.00	24	0.09	22	0.37	44	0.12	30	0.21
Sokolov 2002		6	0.57	15	0.01	9	0.16	12	0.49	16	0.41	10	0.45
Sztompka 1959		34	0.47	90	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.17	43	0.15	38	0.16
Tomsic 1995		52	0.42	81	0.00	61	0.05	57	0.05	57	0.04	61	0.04
Uninsky 1932		44	0.45	82	0.00	20	0.07	27	0.30	27	0.25	22	0.27
Uninsky 1971		19	0.52	31	0.00	8	0.17	11	0.49	22	0.42	11	0.45
Wasowski 1980		38	0.46	85	0.00	44	0.07	45	0.15	31	0.25	31	0.19
Zak 1937		23	0.51	55	0.00	21	0.07	16	0.42	26	0.33	15	0.37
Zak 1951		14	0.54	9	0.02	10	0.13	5	0.58	20	0.39	5	0.48
Average		1	0.68	1	0.29	1	0.29	1	0.73	44	0.17	17	0.35
Random 1		91	-0.05	76	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	81	0.03	90	0.02
Random 2		89	-0.02	35	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	55	0.04	78	0.03
Random 3		90	-0.02	86	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	76	0.02	91	0.01

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).