Niedzielski 1931

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		10	0.63	65	0.00	18	0.07	14	0.41	83	0.03	35	0.11
Anderszewski 2003		32	0.54	35	0.00	34	0.05	37	0.14	80	0.03	48	0.06
Ashkenazy 1981		58	0.45	6	0.02	22	0.07	27	0.28	43	0.10	24	0.17
Bacha 2000		46	0.50	83	0.00	24	0.08	29	0.25	40	0.16	15	0.20
Badura 1965		81	0.39	62	0.00	81	0.03	86	0.03	69	0.04	80	0.03
Barbosa 1983		72	0.40	22	0.01	80	0.04	61	0.04	55	0.06	53	0.05
Biret 1990		28	0.55	21	0.01	36	0.05	34	0.17	59	0.05	37	0.09
Blet 2003		33	0.54	50	0.00	64	0.03	76	0.03	70	0.03	75	0.03
Block 1995		51	0.48	45	0.00	28	0.07	36	0.15	42	0.10	32	0.12
Blumental 1952		75	0.40	38	0.00	49	0.04	52	0.04	32	0.16	42	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		37	0.53	32	0.00	58	0.03	72	0.03	69	0.04	83	0.03
Brailowsky 1960		41	0.52	73	0.00	56	0.03	66	0.03	62	0.05	54	0.04
Bunin 1987		74	0.40	64	0.00	83	0.04	57	0.04	70	0.04	64	0.04
Bunin 1987b		78	0.39	70	0.00	82	0.04	59	0.04	70	0.04	60	0.04
Chiu 1999		77	0.39	57	0.00	63	0.03	64	0.03	57	0.04	68	0.03
Cohen 1997		87	0.17	80	0.00	87	0.04	55	0.04	72	0.03	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		14	0.60	5	0.02	20	0.07	19	0.34	21	0.33	8	0.33
Csalog 1996		49	0.50	71	0.00	54	0.04	47	0.04	38	0.15	41	0.08
Czerny 1949		3	0.66	24	0.01	13	0.09	12	0.45	33	0.21	10	0.31
Czerny 1990		1	0.70	3	0.10	4	0.21	2	0.59	29	0.21	7	0.35
Duchoud 2007		54	0.47	15	0.01	72	0.04	58	0.04	74	0.03	78	0.03
Ezaki 2006		29	0.55	51	0.00	44	0.04	44	0.08	80	0.03	51	0.05
Falvay 1989		63	0.43	86	0.00	79	0.03	68	0.03	55	0.06	56	0.04
Farrell 1958		15	0.60	18	0.01	16	0.08	18	0.35	39	0.12	16	0.20
Ferenczy 1958		35	0.54	43	0.00	53	0.05	45	0.05	58	0.04	62	0.04
Fliere 1977		5	0.66	27	0.00	15	0.09	8	0.46	72	0.03	31	0.12
Fou 1978		84	0.35	84	0.00	74	0.03	69	0.03	81	0.04	70	0.03
Francois 1956		9	0.63	8	0.02	14	0.08	24	0.29	33	0.22	14	0.25
Friedman 1923		83	0.37	55	0.00	42	0.05	42	0.11	37	0.21	27	0.15
Friedman 1923b		80	0.39	40	0.00	40	0.05	39	0.14	30	0.27	18	0.19
Friedman 1930		60	0.44	26	0.01	41	0.04	40	0.12	37	0.18	26	0.15
Garcia 2007		45	0.51	23	0.01	6	0.12	16	0.36	16	0.41	5	0.38
Garcia 2007b		86	0.33	87	0.00	32	0.06	38	0.14	20	0.22	22	0.18
Gierzod 1998		4	0.66	2	0.23	2	0.23	4	0.55	27	0.30	4	0.41
Gornostaeva 1994		23	0.57	77	0.00	71	0.03	65	0.03	81	0.03	86	0.03
Groot 1988		40	0.53	44	0.00	65	0.04	53	0.04	64	0.04	65	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		67	0.42	47	0.00	46	0.04	51	0.04	82	0.03	88	0.03
Hatto 1993		70	0.41	52	0.00	30	0.08	26	0.28	37	0.13	19	0.19
Hatto 1997		59	0.44	12	0.01	31	0.09	28	0.25	40	0.11	23	0.17
Horowitz 1949		27	0.56	10	0.01	27	0.10	17	0.35	27	0.37	6	0.36
Indjic 1988		61	0.44	41	0.00	29	0.06	23	0.29	36	0.14	17	0.20
Kapell 1951		7	0.64	33	0.00	8	0.09	7	0.47	58	0.04	28	0.14
Kissin 1993		38	0.53	56	0.00	21	0.07	21	0.30	43	0.11	21	0.18
Kushner 1989		19	0.58	79	0.00	45	0.05	46	0.05	73	0.03	59	0.04
Luisada 1991		36	0.54	17	0.01	12	0.07	25	0.28	41	0.11	20	0.18
Lushtak 2004		66	0.42	39	0.00	62	0.03	81	0.03	76	0.03	81	0.03
Malcuzynski 1961		21	0.58	66	0.00	47	0.04	50	0.04	58	0.04	61	0.04
Magaloff 1978		30	0.55	28	0.00	37	0.04	41	0.11	47	0.07	36	0.09
Magin 1975		44	0.51	11	0.01	26	0.10	22	0.30	58	0.04	33	0.11
Michalowski 1933		71	0.41	63	0.00	61	0.03	85	0.03	51	0.07	52	0.05
Milkina 1970		24	0.57	90	0.00	35	0.05	35	0.15	79	0.04	39	0.08
Mohovich 1999		34	0.54	68	0.00	51	0.04	49	0.04	86	0.03	84	0.03
Moravec 1969		2	0.67	4	0.07	3	0.18	1	0.61	2	0.63	1	0.62
Morozova 2008		65	0.43	74	0.00	52	0.04	54	0.04	80	0.03	77	0.03
Neighaus 1950		17	0.59	7	0.02	11	0.07	15	0.40	76	0.04	30	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Ohlsson 1999		20	0.58	30	0.00	23	0.07	30	0.24	76	0.03	40	0.08
Osinska 1989		12	0.60	85	0.00	39	0.07	32	0.17	71	0.04	38	0.08
Pachmann 1927		82	0.38	37	0.00	86	0.03	80	0.03	77	0.03	73	0.03
Paderewski 1930		42	0.52	88	0.00	66	0.03	70	0.03	54	0.04	72	0.03
Perlemuter 1992		53	0.48	46	0.00	33	0.05	33	0.17	78	0.03	43	0.07
Pierdomenico 2008		69	0.41	25	0.01	73	0.04	62	0.04	44	0.10	47	0.06
Poblocka 1999		11	0.61	49	0.00	19	0.09	9	0.45	64	0.04	29	0.13
Rabcewiczowa 1932		47	0.50	81	0.00	67	0.03	77	0.03	75	0.03	69	0.03
Rachmaninoff 1923		16	0.59	9	0.02	9	0.09	11	0.45	28	0.21	9	0.31
Rangell 2001		79	0.39	61	0.00	84	0.03	75	0.03	71	0.03	87	0.03
Richter 1976		56	0.46	13	0.01	48	0.04	48	0.04	42	0.12	44	0.07
Rosen 1989		50	0.50	69	0.00	69	0.03	87	0.03	60	0.04	82	0.03
Rosenthal 1930		43	0.51	76	0.00	70	0.03	71	0.03	63	0.04	79	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		64	0.43	58	0.00	60	0.03	83	0.03	74	0.03	74	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		62	0.44	78	0.00	57	0.04	60	0.04	41	0.08	50	0.06
Rosenthal 1931c		48	0.50	53	0.00	59	0.03	82	0.03	58	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		52	0.48	59	0.00	55	0.03	63	0.03	38	0.14	49	0.06
Rossi 2007		85	0.33	36	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	51	0.06	55	0.04
Rubinstein 1939		76	0.40	20	0.01	77	0.03	84	0.03	52	0.05	58	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		68	0.41	48	0.00	75	0.03	74	0.03	63	0.05	66	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		57	0.45	67	0.00	78	0.03	67	0.03	70	0.04	76	0.03
Schilhawsky 1960		6	0.65	1	0.28	1	0.28	3	0.59	18	0.44	2	0.51
Shebanova 2002		18	0.58	14	0.01	17	0.07	13	0.42	36	0.17	12	0.27
Smith 1975		39	0.53	54	0.00	50	0.04	56	0.04	55	0.05	57	0.04
Sokolov 2002		55	0.47	72	0.00	68	0.03	73	0.03	82	0.03	67	0.03
Sztompka 1959		31	0.55	31	0.00	38	0.05	31	0.21	52	0.06	34	0.11
Tomsic 1995		73	0.40	34	0.00	85	0.03	78	0.03	82	0.03	71	0.03
Uninsky 1932		22	0.58	29	0.00	25	0.09	20	0.30	36	0.21	13	0.25
Uninsky 1971		26	0.56	82	0.00	43	0.04	43	0.08	57	0.06	45	0.07
Wasowski 1980		8	0.64	19	0.01	5	0.17	5	0.50	4	0.44	3	0.47
Zak 1937		13	0.60	16	0.01	7	0.14	6	0.50	36	0.18	11	0.30
Zak 1951		25	0.56	42	0.00	10	0.11	10	0.45	54	0.06	25	0.16
Random 1		88	-0.10	75	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	31	0.26	46	0.07
Random 2		89	-0.10	60	0.00	88	0.02	88	0.02	42	0.09	63	0.04
Random 3		90	-0.14	89	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	0.01	90	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).