Sztompka 1959

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		7	0.62	17	0.01	10	0.08	8	0.50	13	0.46	11	0.48
Anderszewski 2003		63	0.40	86	0.00	48	0.05	55	0.05	51	0.03	72	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		8	0.62	9	0.01	8	0.08	9	0.49	25	0.35	21	0.41
Bacha 2000		82	0.27	79	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	79	0.03	76	0.03
Badura 1965		46	0.47	51	0.00	39	0.05	35	0.23	21	0.37	26	0.29
Barbosa 1983		59	0.42	27	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	58	0.04	59	0.05
Biret 1990		60	0.42	74	0.00	67	0.04	76	0.04	54	0.04	75	0.04
Blet 2003		10	0.61	52	0.00	22	0.08	19	0.43	17	0.42	19	0.42
Block 1995		58	0.43	4	0.07	14	0.07	36	0.22	32	0.20	35	0.21
Blumental 1952		49	0.47	22	0.01	12	0.11	34	0.28	10	0.45	23	0.35
Boshniakovich 1969		53	0.45	75	0.00	61	0.04	71	0.04	73	0.03	82	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		83	0.24	80	0.00	87	0.03	83	0.03	72	0.04	77	0.03
Bunin 1987		13	0.60	29	0.00	25	0.13	20	0.43	14	0.44	18	0.43
Bunin 1987b		14	0.60	30	0.00	26	0.13	21	0.42	14	0.44	17	0.43
Chiu 1999		68	0.37	59	0.00	71	0.05	59	0.05	67	0.04	62	0.04
Cohen 1997		84	0.23	37	0.00	83	0.03	84	0.03	71	0.04	83	0.03
Cortot 1951		9	0.61	66	0.00	7	0.11	14	0.45	4	0.58	9	0.51
Csalog 1996		77	0.30	45	0.00	82	0.02	86	0.02	76	0.03	87	0.02
Czerny 1949		20	0.59	81	0.00	23	0.11	24	0.39	19	0.49	13	0.44
Czerny 1990		1	0.74	1	0.37	1	0.37	2	0.69	3	0.65	1	0.67
Duchoud 2007		29	0.54	48	0.00	38	0.07	33	0.28	33	0.28	30	0.28
Ezaki 2006		23	0.57	70	0.00	36	0.09	30	0.31	55	0.05	42	0.12
Falvay 1989		56	0.44	82	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04
Farrell 1958		48	0.47	64	0.00	58	0.05	56	0.05	40	0.18	46	0.09
Ferenczy 1958		28	0.55	76	0.00	27	0.15	26	0.36	13	0.46	20	0.41
Fliere 1977		6	0.63	6	0.04	15	0.06	17	0.44	35	0.18	28	0.28
Fou 1978		65	0.38	38	0.00	72	0.04	64	0.04	77	0.04	67	0.04
Francois 1956		40	0.50	71	0.00	41	0.05	44	0.13	47	0.06	50	0.09
Friedman 1923		61	0.41	60	0.00	18	0.08	27	0.35	5	0.56	15	0.44
Friedman 1923b		62	0.41	41	0.00	17	0.06	28	0.34	5	0.58	14	0.44
Friedman 1930		43	0.49	56	0.00	19	0.10	16	0.44	8	0.56	10	0.50
Garcia 2007		76	0.31	42	0.00	59	0.04	63	0.04	12	0.50	39	0.14
Garcia 2007b		79	0.29	87	0.00	65	0.05	57	0.05	12	0.42	40	0.14
Gierzod 1998		42	0.49	88	0.00	43	0.06	40	0.17	61	0.05	48	0.09
Gornostaeva 1994		32	0.51	8	0.03	34	0.08	39	0.17	49	0.05	49	0.09
Groot 1988		24	0.57	10	0.01	33	0.07	25	0.37	34	0.23	27	0.29
Harasiewicz 1955		51	0.46	34	0.00	35	0.08	32	0.28	47	0.05	44	0.12
Hatto 1993		75	0.33	53	0.00	64	0.06	48	0.06	60	0.04	61	0.05
Hatto 1997		69	0.36	63	0.00	62	0.04	68	0.04	48	0.05	74	0.04
Horowitz 1949		67	0.38	46	0.00	75	0.06	52	0.06	65	0.04	57	0.05
Indjic 1988		74	0.34	83	0.00	63	0.04	77	0.04	53	0.05	71	0.04
Kapell 1951		4	0.66	26	0.00	4	0.20	5	0.51	7	0.53	6	0.52
Kissin 1993		52	0.46	18	0.01	53	0.04	74	0.04	58	0.05	70	0.04
Kushner 1989		26	0.56	32	0.00	46	0.06	53	0.06	45	0.10	52	0.08
Luisada 1991		54	0.44	40	0.00	66	0.06	50	0.06	70	0.04	55	0.05
Lushtak 2004		34	0.50	58	0.00	40	0.05	38	0.21	46	0.06	45	0.11
Malcuzynski 1961		12	0.61	39	0.00	30	0.08	23	0.40	43	0.12	33	0.22
Magaloff 1978		44	0.48	12	0.01	51	0.05	61	0.05	85	0.03	63	0.04
Magin 1975		73	0.34	28	0.00	77	0.05	60	0.05	70	0.03	66	0.04
Michalowski 1933		27	0.56	5	0.05	5	0.19	4	0.53	4	0.49	8	0.51
Milkina 1970		72	0.34	67	0.00	78	0.03	80	0.03	76	0.04	78	0.03
Mohovich 1999		39	0.50	49	0.00	47	0.07	47	0.07	54	0.05	54	0.06
Moravec 1969		31	0.52	44	0.00	42	0.06	41	0.16	23	0.31	32	0.22
Morozova 2008		25	0.56	3	0.08	9	0.08	18	0.43	22	0.26	25	0.33
Neighaus 1950		21	0.58	19	0.01	29	0.09	15	0.45	57	0.05	38	0.15
Niedzielski 1931		64	0.40	11	0.01	52	0.04	69	0.04	29	0.17	51	0.08
Ohlsson 1999		33	0.51	47	0.00	50	0.06	54	0.06	64	0.04	58	0.05
Osinska 1989		41	0.50	65	0.00	55	0.04	65	0.04	51	0.06	56	0.05
Pachmann 1927		81	0.28	43	0.00	79	0.04	75	0.04	62	0.04	69	0.04
Paderewski 1930		17	0.59	16	0.01	13	0.11	11	0.48	4	0.54	7	0.51
Perlemuter 1992		19	0.59	24	0.00	24	0.11	6	0.51	9	0.56	3	0.53
Pierdomenico 2008		57	0.44	54	0.00	70	0.05	58	0.05	60	0.04	65	0.04
Poblocka 1999		3	0.66	31	0.00	6	0.16	7	0.51	4	0.55	4	0.53
Rabcewiczowa 1932		16	0.59	23	0.01	20	0.07	12	0.47	10	0.59	5	0.53
Rachmaninoff 1923		47	0.47	14	0.01	31	0.08	31	0.29	28	0.27	29	0.28
Rangell 2001		66	0.38	62	0.00	76	0.04	62	0.04	81	0.03	84	0.03
Richter 1976		37	0.50	25	0.00	54	0.04	70	0.04	41	0.15	53	0.08
Rosen 1989		35	0.50	77	0.00	56	0.06	51	0.06	65	0.04	60	0.05
Rosenthal 1930		36	0.50	21	0.01	37	0.07	37	0.22	15	0.52	24	0.34
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.19	89	0.00	80	0.04	78	0.04	64	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.17	68	0.00	81	0.03	82	0.03	86	0.02	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931c		50	0.46	50	0.00	57	0.07	46	0.07	33	0.25	41	0.13
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.17	72	0.00	86	0.02	87	0.02	85	0.02	90	0.02
Rossi 2007		80	0.28	35	0.00	60	0.04	73	0.04	16	0.34	43	0.12
Rubinstein 1939		88	0.14	90	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.03	86	0.02
Rubinstein 1952		78	0.29	61	0.00	85	0.03	81	0.03	77	0.03	85	0.03
Rubinstein 1966		55	0.44	69	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	62	0.05	73	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		45	0.47	91	0.00	44	0.07	43	0.15	41	0.17	36	0.16
Shebanova 2002		30	0.52	15	0.01	16	0.08	42	0.16	64	0.05	47	0.09
Smith 1975		15	0.60	20	0.01	21	0.08	10	0.48	19	0.38	16	0.43
Sokolov 2002		11	0.61	78	0.00	28	0.11	22	0.41	25	0.36	22	0.38
Sztompka 1959		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Tomsic 1995		22	0.58	33	0.00	32	0.07	29	0.33	34	0.18	31	0.24
Uninsky 1932		5	0.64	2	0.11	2	0.21	3	0.58	3	0.65	2	0.61
Uninsky 1971		18	0.59	36	0.00	11	0.08	13	0.46	14	0.47	12	0.46
Wasowski 1980		38	0.50	13	0.01	45	0.06	45	0.11	34	0.21	37	0.15
Zak 1937		70	0.35	57	0.00	74	0.04	67	0.04	72	0.04	68	0.04
Zak 1951		71	0.35	73	0.00	73	0.03	79	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03
Average		2	0.71	7	0.04	3	0.20	1	0.71	48	0.06	34	0.21
Random 1		91	-0.03	55	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	38	0.11	81	0.03
Random 2		90	-0.03	84	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	62	0.03	88	0.02
Random 3		89	0.01	85	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	70	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).