Wasowski 1980

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		41	0.43	86	0.00	66	0.05	57	0.05	77	0.03	68	0.04
Anderszewski 2003		64	0.38	50	0.00	40	0.05	44	0.13	70	0.03	51	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		25	0.49	46	0.00	24	0.08	11	0.42	48	0.05	36	0.14
Bacha 2000		78	0.29	82	0.00	77	0.03	84	0.03	72	0.03	75	0.03
Badura 1965		54	0.41	15	0.01	44	0.09	36	0.19	62	0.04	45	0.09
Barbosa 1983		53	0.41	51	0.00	31	0.07	39	0.19	38	0.24	24	0.21
Biret 1990		14	0.52	23	0.01	10	0.10	5	0.52	22	0.44	4	0.48
Blet 2003		17	0.50	7	0.04	9	0.12	13	0.40	31	0.28	13	0.33
Block 1995		56	0.40	87	0.00	50	0.05	59	0.05	66	0.03	69	0.04
Blumental 1952		79	0.28	59	0.00	80	0.03	86	0.03	81	0.03	81	0.03
Boshniakovich 1969		27	0.48	47	0.00	43	0.07	37	0.19	47	0.05	39	0.10
Brailowsky 1960		71	0.33	70	0.00	81	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.04	77	0.03
Bunin 1987		48	0.41	42	0.00	60	0.06	51	0.06	57	0.05	53	0.05
Bunin 1987b		47	0.42	65	0.00	59	0.04	70	0.04	58	0.05	61	0.04
Chiu 1999		34	0.46	5	0.05	5	0.13	14	0.40	27	0.39	6	0.39
Cohen 1997		76	0.30	45	0.00	55	0.03	78	0.03	44	0.11	52	0.06
Cortot 1951		36	0.45	29	0.00	37	0.06	30	0.25	35	0.23	22	0.24
Csalog 1996		13	0.52	3	0.06	6	0.10	10	0.44	12	0.53	3	0.48
Czerny 1949		38	0.44	68	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.15	59	0.05	44	0.09
Czerny 1990		2	0.59	11	0.03	11	0.08	8	0.45	39	0.16	16	0.27
Duchoud 2007		6	0.57	27	0.00	7	0.09	4	0.54	19	0.44	2	0.49
Ezaki 2006		65	0.36	71	0.00	73	0.05	52	0.05	75	0.03	57	0.04
Falvay 1989		29	0.48	12	0.02	29	0.06	20	0.33	41	0.10	30	0.18
Farrell 1958		24	0.50	13	0.02	26	0.07	22	0.33	9	0.47	7	0.39
Ferenczy 1958		75	0.30	83	0.00	84	0.05	56	0.05	78	0.03	67	0.04
Fliere 1977		12	0.53	72	0.00	23	0.08	25	0.30	40	0.12	27	0.19
Fou 1978		68	0.36	39	0.00	70	0.04	65	0.04	59	0.05	60	0.04
Francois 1956		43	0.42	79	0.00	65	0.03	81	0.03	59	0.04	85	0.03
Friedman 1923		85	0.19	28	0.00	75	0.04	69	0.04	49	0.06	56	0.05
Friedman 1923b		84	0.20	31	0.00	74	0.04	75	0.04	66	0.05	72	0.04
Friedman 1930		74	0.31	16	0.01	52	0.04	68	0.04	40	0.17	48	0.08
Garcia 2007		83	0.21	38	0.00	79	0.04	74	0.04	69	0.03	79	0.03
Garcia 2007b		81	0.25	62	0.00	82	0.04	73	0.04	58	0.04	74	0.04
Gierzod 1998		77	0.29	73	0.00	78	0.03	82	0.03	87	0.02	87	0.02
Gornostaeva 1994		37	0.44	69	0.00	54	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.03	83	0.03
Groot 1988		8	0.55	25	0.00	22	0.07	21	0.33	43	0.13	25	0.21
Harasiewicz 1955		67	0.36	58	0.00	48	0.07	47	0.07	83	0.03	54	0.05
Hatto 1993		62	0.38	55	0.00	28	0.06	32	0.23	21	0.32	17	0.27
Hatto 1997		63	0.38	52	0.00	46	0.07	48	0.07	27	0.27	35	0.14
Horowitz 1949		4	0.58	8	0.04	12	0.10	7	0.47	24	0.31	9	0.38
Indjic 1988		58	0.40	41	0.00	27	0.08	29	0.25	22	0.33	14	0.29
Kapell 1951		7	0.56	21	0.01	16	0.08	12	0.42	37	0.27	12	0.34
Kissin 1993		45	0.42	66	0.00	63	0.05	60	0.05	60	0.04	64	0.04
Kushner 1989		15	0.52	74	0.00	36	0.06	27	0.29	73	0.03	42	0.09
Luisada 1991		20	0.50	4	0.05	17	0.07	6	0.50	30	0.29	8	0.38
Lushtak 2004		55	0.40	80	0.00	30	0.05	40	0.17	67	0.04	49	0.08
Malcuzynski 1961		28	0.48	36	0.00	51	0.04	66	0.04	61	0.04	62	0.04
Magaloff 1978		35	0.45	49	0.00	56	0.03	80	0.03	61	0.03	78	0.03
Magin 1975		33	0.46	17	0.01	45	0.08	42	0.15	36	0.19	31	0.17
Michalowski 1933		44	0.42	56	0.00	35	0.05	33	0.23	34	0.27	19	0.25
Milkina 1970		31	0.47	34	0.00	38	0.06	28	0.28	67	0.04	37	0.11
Mohovich 1999		70	0.34	77	0.00	76	0.04	67	0.04	84	0.03	82	0.03
Moravec 1969		10	0.54	14	0.02	13	0.08	19	0.34	32	0.18	18	0.25
Morozova 2008		22	0.50	37	0.00	15	0.15	17	0.35	71	0.03	38	0.10
Neighaus 1950		30	0.48	33	0.00	21	0.08	26	0.30	39	0.15	26	0.21
Niedzielski 1931		21	0.50	20	0.01	34	0.06	24	0.31	4	0.52	5	0.40
Ohlsson 1999		5	0.57	9	0.03	4	0.11	3	0.55	26	0.25	10	0.37
Osinska 1989		9	0.55	2	0.10	3	0.12	16	0.37	32	0.20	15	0.27
Pachmann 1927		72	0.32	32	0.00	58	0.03	76	0.03	35	0.21	47	0.08
Paderewski 1930		40	0.43	35	0.00	64	0.06	50	0.06	69	0.03	63	0.04
Perlemuter 1992		57	0.40	53	0.00	57	0.03	79	0.03	64	0.04	76	0.03
Pierdomenico 2008		49	0.41	44	0.00	49	0.06	49	0.06	41	0.15	41	0.09
Poblocka 1999		16	0.51	57	0.00	25	0.09	15	0.38	45	0.10	28	0.19
Rabcewiczowa 1932		59	0.39	81	0.00	71	0.04	63	0.04	55	0.05	59	0.04
Rachmaninoff 1923		19	0.50	22	0.01	14	0.11	23	0.33	35	0.18	21	0.24
Rangell 2001		60	0.39	48	0.00	61	0.04	71	0.04	57	0.04	73	0.04
Richter 1976		3	0.58	6	0.05	2	0.12	2	0.64	3	0.51	1	0.57
Rosen 1989		52	0.41	61	0.00	67	0.04	62	0.04	58	0.04	70	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		73	0.31	75	0.00	83	0.04	72	0.04	78	0.03	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		87	0.09	88	0.00	89	0.02	87	0.02	89	0.01	90	0.01
Rosenthal 1931b		88	0.08	89	0.00	88	0.01	89	0.01	89	0.01	91	0.01
Rosenthal 1931c		80	0.27	76	0.00	85	0.05	55	0.05	83	0.02	84	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.14	90	0.00	86	0.03	85	0.03	89	0.02	89	0.02
Rossi 2007		82	0.24	30	0.00	53	0.03	77	0.03	32	0.20	46	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		69	0.35	18	0.01	39	0.05	43	0.14	25	0.35	23	0.22
Rubinstein 1952		42	0.42	43	0.00	69	0.05	54	0.05	59	0.06	55	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		50	0.41	60	0.00	68	0.04	61	0.04	68	0.04	66	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		32	0.46	64	0.00	32	0.07	31	0.25	45	0.15	29	0.19
Shebanova 2002		11	0.53	10	0.03	8	0.12	9	0.45	34	0.27	11	0.35
Smith 1975		61	0.39	67	0.00	62	0.05	58	0.05	64	0.04	58	0.04
Sokolov 2002		23	0.50	40	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.19	62	0.04	40	0.09
Sztompka 1959		18	0.50	26	0.00	20	0.06	34	0.21	45	0.11	34	0.15
Tomsic 1995		39	0.44	19	0.01	18	0.07	35	0.20	45	0.12	33	0.15
Uninsky 1932		26	0.49	24	0.01	19	0.06	18	0.34	34	0.19	20	0.25
Uninsky 1971		66	0.36	84	0.00	72	0.05	53	0.05	70	0.03	65	0.04
Wasowski 1980		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Zak 1937		46	0.42	63	0.00	33	0.06	45	0.12	46	0.07	43	0.09
Zak 1951		51	0.41	54	0.00	47	0.09	46	0.09	58	0.05	50	0.07
Average		1	0.64	1	0.29	1	0.29	1	0.68	61	0.04	32	0.16
Random 1		91	-0.06	85	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	80	0.03	88	0.02
Random 2		90	-0.02	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	70	0.03	86	0.02
Random 3		89	0.07	78	0.00	87	0.02	88	0.02	44	0.10	71	0.04

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).