Ferenczy 1958

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		9	0.65	29	0.00	17	0.07	15	0.32	43	0.10	22	0.18
Anderszewski 2003		22	0.59	25	0.00	14	0.09	13	0.36	39	0.09	21	0.18
Ashkenazy 1981		47	0.52	40	0.00	32	0.06	31	0.20	42	0.11	26	0.15
Bacha 2000		36	0.54	50	0.00	40	0.04	41	0.08	33	0.18	34	0.12
Badura 1965		62	0.49	19	0.01	44	0.04	45	0.07	66	0.04	50	0.05
Barbosa 1983		44	0.53	12	0.01	30	0.07	29	0.21	22	0.28	17	0.24
Biret 1990		25	0.58	72	0.00	33	0.07	27	0.22	42	0.13	24	0.17
Blet 2003		4	0.68	42	0.00	13	0.09	11	0.37	22	0.31	9	0.34
Block 1995		57	0.50	65	0.00	69	0.04	59	0.04	61	0.04	64	0.04
Blumental 1952		63	0.49	35	0.00	9	0.13	22	0.28	16	0.28	15	0.28
Boshniakovich 1969		55	0.51	68	0.00	76	0.03	82	0.03	82	0.02	87	0.02
Brailowsky 1960		43	0.54	11	0.01	68	0.04	70	0.04	77	0.04	54	0.04
Bunin 1987		24	0.59	14	0.01	28	0.07	17	0.32	27	0.32	12	0.32
Bunin 1987b		26	0.58	16	0.01	29	0.09	18	0.31	28	0.33	11	0.32
Chiu 1999		77	0.40	45	0.00	75	0.03	85	0.03	78	0.03	71	0.03
Cohen 1997		75	0.40	10	0.01	39	0.05	38	0.11	26	0.21	27	0.15
Cortot 1951		6	0.66	30	0.00	7	0.11	6	0.45	10	0.46	5	0.45
Csalog 1996		37	0.54	9	0.02	35	0.05	28	0.22	16	0.40	14	0.30
Czerny 1949		17	0.61	37	0.00	22	0.06	14	0.35	36	0.17	18	0.24
Czerny 1990		12	0.63	33	0.00	25	0.06	25	0.26	55	0.05	36	0.11
Duchoud 2007		61	0.49	73	0.00	59	0.04	60	0.04	51	0.05	63	0.04
Ezaki 2006		8	0.66	5	0.03	16	0.10	9	0.40	70	0.04	31	0.13
Falvay 1989		51	0.51	20	0.01	43	0.04	44	0.07	70	0.04	45	0.05
Farrell 1958		48	0.52	69	0.00	63	0.04	65	0.04	85	0.03	74	0.03
Ferenczy 1958		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Fliere 1977		18	0.61	84	0.00	47	0.04	57	0.04	85	0.03	70	0.03
Fou 1978		65	0.48	79	0.00	73	0.03	84	0.03	74	0.04	75	0.03
Francois 1956		23	0.59	15	0.01	38	0.06	37	0.12	38	0.15	33	0.13
Friedman 1923		82	0.35	66	0.00	55	0.05	54	0.05	43	0.14	41	0.08
Friedman 1923b		84	0.35	76	0.00	54	0.05	56	0.05	43	0.12	40	0.08
Friedman 1930		68	0.45	58	0.00	49	0.06	46	0.06	40	0.15	38	0.09
Garcia 2007		60	0.50	63	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	60	0.04	49	0.05
Garcia 2007b		73	0.41	17	0.01	31	0.06	34	0.16	32	0.14	28	0.15
Gierzod 1998		27	0.57	71	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	60	0.04	48	0.05
Gornostaeva 1994		38	0.54	24	0.01	65	0.04	71	0.04	85	0.02	81	0.03
Groot 1988		31	0.55	36	0.00	57	0.05	55	0.05	52	0.04	68	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		49	0.52	22	0.01	37	0.07	35	0.14	85	0.02	51	0.05
Hatto 1993		66	0.48	80	0.00	21	0.08	33	0.20	55	0.05	37	0.10
Hatto 1997		33	0.55	18	0.01	11	0.13	19	0.30	35	0.14	20	0.20
Horowitz 1949		72	0.42	41	0.00	81	0.03	73	0.03	74	0.03	77	0.03
Indjic 1988		53	0.51	74	0.00	20	0.07	30	0.21	44	0.09	30	0.14
Kapell 1951		1	0.78	1	0.56	1	0.56	1	0.73	4	0.50	1	0.60
Kissin 1993		59	0.50	77	0.00	77	0.03	83	0.03	80	0.03	79	0.03
Kushner 1989		34	0.55	57	0.00	60	0.05	53	0.05	72	0.03	57	0.04
Luisada 1991		28	0.57	21	0.01	45	0.03	74	0.03	50	0.05	53	0.04
Lushtak 2004		16	0.62	46	0.00	15	0.11	12	0.36	59	0.05	32	0.13
Malcuzynski 1961		67	0.48	56	0.00	79	0.04	72	0.04	79	0.03	76	0.03
Magaloff 1978		69	0.44	75	0.00	80	0.04	66	0.04	78	0.03	72	0.03
Magin 1975		78	0.39	85	0.00	82	0.03	86	0.03	74	0.03	73	0.03
Michalowski 1933		45	0.53	82	0.00	10	0.13	10	0.40	14	0.42	6	0.41
Milkina 1970		46	0.52	26	0.00	78	0.04	63	0.04	52	0.05	59	0.04
Mohovich 1999		14	0.63	8	0.02	27	0.08	26	0.23	51	0.05	35	0.11
Moravec 1969		52	0.51	23	0.01	62	0.05	52	0.05	44	0.14	39	0.08
Morozova 2008		58	0.50	60	0.00	58	0.03	75	0.03	84	0.02	86	0.02
Neighaus 1950		29	0.56	87	0.00	34	0.06	39	0.11	69	0.04	43	0.07
Niedzielski 1931		42	0.54	59	0.00	46	0.04	58	0.04	45	0.05	56	0.04
Ohlsson 1999		39	0.54	61	0.00	50	0.07	43	0.07	69	0.04	46	0.05
Osinska 1989		11	0.64	34	0.00	24	0.07	23	0.27	43	0.09	25	0.16
Pachmann 1927		70	0.43	53	0.00	85	0.03	77	0.03	83	0.03	78	0.03
Paderewski 1930		10	0.64	70	0.00	19	0.07	21	0.29	15	0.33	13	0.31
Perlemuter 1992		15	0.62	54	0.00	23	0.08	16	0.32	47	0.06	29	0.14
Pierdomenico 2008		83	0.35	49	0.00	83	0.03	79	0.03	83	0.02	84	0.02
Poblocka 1999		2	0.75	2	0.06	2	0.34	2	0.68	10	0.47	2	0.57
Rabcewiczowa 1932		20	0.60	38	0.00	26	0.10	24	0.27	28	0.26	16	0.26
Rachmaninoff 1923		74	0.41	43	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	86	0.02	83	0.02
Rangell 2001		81	0.36	55	0.00	84	0.04	67	0.04	56	0.04	67	0.04
Richter 1976		32	0.55	4	0.03	6	0.14	32	0.20	36	0.15	23	0.17
Rosen 1989		35	0.55	31	0.00	52	0.05	50	0.05	61	0.04	65	0.04
Rosenthal 1930		64	0.48	64	0.00	64	0.03	76	0.03	58	0.04	80	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		85	0.33	62	0.00	71	0.03	78	0.03	83	0.02	85	0.02
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.30	83	0.00	87	0.04	68	0.04	70	0.04	69	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.42	48	0.00	70	0.04	69	0.04	83	0.02	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		86	0.33	81	0.00	86	0.02	88	0.02	84	0.02	88	0.02
Rossi 2007		79	0.37	78	0.00	72	0.03	81	0.03	56	0.05	55	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		80	0.37	51	0.00	41	0.04	40	0.08	65	0.04	44	0.06
Rubinstein 1952		76	0.40	32	0.00	42	0.04	42	0.08	83	0.03	52	0.05
Rubinstein 1966		54	0.51	47	0.00	67	0.04	64	0.04	75	0.04	62	0.04
Schilhawsky 1960		13	0.63	52	0.00	12	0.14	7	0.44	34	0.29	8	0.36
Shebanova 2002		30	0.56	86	0.00	53	0.06	47	0.06	61	0.05	47	0.05
Smith 1975		5	0.67	6	0.03	4	0.17	3	0.58	28	0.25	7	0.38
Sokolov 2002		41	0.54	39	0.00	36	0.06	36	0.14	61	0.04	42	0.07
Sztompka 1959		3	0.69	7	0.02	3	0.19	5	0.50	18	0.40	4	0.45
Tomsic 1995		40	0.54	28	0.00	66	0.04	62	0.04	60	0.04	61	0.04
Uninsky 1932		21	0.59	13	0.01	8	0.12	8	0.41	29	0.29	10	0.34
Uninsky 1971		7	0.66	3	0.03	5	0.18	4	0.52	17	0.40	3	0.46
Wasowski 1980		19	0.60	27	0.00	18	0.07	20	0.30	33	0.13	19	0.20
Zak 1937		50	0.52	90	0.00	61	0.05	51	0.05	75	0.04	58	0.04
Zak 1951		56	0.50	88	0.00	56	0.04	61	0.04	69	0.04	60	0.04
Random 1		89	-0.19	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	79	0.02	90	0.01
Random 2		90	-0.21	67	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	80	0.02	89	0.01
Random 3		88	-0.03	44	0.00	88	0.02	87	0.02	44	0.08	66	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).