Blet 2003

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		2	0.78	4	0.05	3	0.26	3	0.57	22	0.40	3	0.48
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.58	36	0.00	41	0.05	43	0.10	62	0.03	67	0.05
Ashkenazy 1981		58	0.55	55	0.00	51	0.05	53	0.05	70	0.03	75	0.04
Bacha 2000		71	0.51	76	0.00	74	0.03	80	0.03	72	0.04	80	0.03
Badura 1965		40	0.61	63	0.00	26	0.06	33	0.20	16	0.39	22	0.28
Barbosa 1983		25	0.65	15	0.01	13	0.13	12	0.41	9	0.53	4	0.47
Biret 1990		24	0.65	22	0.01	23	0.07	19	0.33	38	0.19	26	0.25
Blet 2003		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Block 1995		73	0.49	18	0.01	33	0.05	38	0.13	52	0.04	59	0.07
Blumental 1952		70	0.52	44	0.00	52	0.05	58	0.05	38	0.14	49	0.08
Boshniakovich 1969		37	0.62	82	0.00	54	0.04	65	0.04	43	0.11	60	0.07
Brailowsky 1960		66	0.53	21	0.01	83	0.03	83	0.03	68	0.04	82	0.03
Bunin 1987		57	0.55	56	0.00	60	0.05	52	0.05	40	0.18	45	0.09
Bunin 1987b		59	0.55	77	0.00	59	0.05	51	0.05	39	0.19	40	0.10
Chiu 1999		53	0.56	64	0.00	53	0.04	67	0.04	46	0.07	64	0.05
Cohen 1997		88	0.33	41	0.00	77	0.02	88	0.02	37	0.12	69	0.05
Cortot 1951		33	0.63	86	0.00	48	0.06	48	0.06	40	0.16	42	0.10
Csalog 1996		68	0.52	16	0.01	61	0.04	62	0.04	30	0.24	41	0.10
Czerny 1949		26	0.65	81	0.00	35	0.05	35	0.19	69	0.04	44	0.09
Czerny 1990		4	0.74	43	0.00	4	0.17	5	0.52	18	0.41	6	0.46
Duchoud 2007		46	0.58	90	0.00	46	0.05	54	0.05	28	0.32	35	0.13
Ezaki 2006		11	0.70	8	0.03	15	0.09	14	0.39	34	0.22	19	0.29
Falvay 1989		60	0.55	33	0.00	81	0.03	76	0.03	48	0.07	65	0.05
Farrell 1958		52	0.56	87	0.00	64	0.03	72	0.03	48	0.06	72	0.04
Ferenczy 1958		15	0.68	6	0.04	10	0.10	23	0.31	12	0.37	16	0.34
Fliere 1977		3	0.77	2	0.12	2	0.24	2	0.59	19	0.40	2	0.49
Fou 1978		28	0.64	40	0.00	25	0.07	17	0.35	36	0.16	28	0.24
Francois 1956		32	0.64	62	0.00	36	0.05	34	0.20	32	0.27	30	0.23
Friedman 1923		80	0.43	83	0.00	70	0.04	60	0.04	30	0.28	39	0.11
Friedman 1923b		81	0.43	66	0.00	69	0.03	75	0.03	30	0.29	46	0.09
Friedman 1930		78	0.45	47	0.00	65	0.03	74	0.03	44	0.13	62	0.06
Garcia 2007		61	0.55	46	0.00	57	0.05	55	0.05	33	0.26	38	0.11
Garcia 2007b		84	0.40	75	0.00	67	0.03	73	0.03	52	0.05	79	0.04
Gierzod 1998		31	0.64	53	0.00	42	0.04	39	0.13	60	0.04	58	0.07
Gornostaeva 1994		43	0.60	20	0.01	38	0.05	40	0.12	46	0.06	50	0.08
Groot 1988		45	0.60	60	0.00	56	0.04	59	0.04	50	0.05	77	0.04
Harasiewicz 1955		50	0.57	34	0.00	39	0.04	36	0.17	61	0.04	52	0.08
Hatto 1993		56	0.55	37	0.00	29	0.08	30	0.23	21	0.27	27	0.25
Hatto 1997		41	0.61	72	0.00	21	0.07	25	0.29	21	0.28	21	0.28
Horowitz 1949		77	0.47	58	0.00	82	0.03	77	0.03	66	0.04	87	0.03
Indjic 1988		47	0.58	84	0.00	28	0.06	29	0.25	21	0.30	24	0.27
Kapell 1951		12	0.69	14	0.01	9	0.11	8	0.46	25	0.30	13	0.37
Kissin 1993		21	0.66	42	0.00	27	0.06	28	0.26	45	0.10	33	0.16
Kushner 1989		13	0.69	51	0.00	30	0.07	26	0.29	36	0.18	29	0.23
Luisada 1991		16	0.68	17	0.01	18	0.07	15	0.37	33	0.26	17	0.31
Lushtak 2004		10	0.70	7	0.03	5	0.14	6	0.48	19	0.33	9	0.40
Malcuzynski 1961		62	0.54	28	0.00	71	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03	86	0.03
Magaloff 1978		69	0.52	32	0.00	73	0.03	70	0.03	55	0.05	70	0.04
Magin 1975		64	0.54	26	0.00	66	0.04	66	0.04	74	0.03	85	0.03
Michalowski 1933		76	0.47	49	0.00	43	0.04	45	0.09	37	0.27	32	0.16
Milkina 1970		39	0.61	38	0.00	40	0.05	41	0.11	85	0.04	56	0.07
Mohovich 1999		9	0.71	10	0.02	14	0.13	7	0.47	31	0.31	12	0.38
Moravec 1969		65	0.53	29	0.00	79	0.03	79	0.03	75	0.03	81	0.03
Morozova 2008		18	0.67	39	0.00	19	0.08	24	0.31	27	0.24	25	0.27
Neighaus 1950		30	0.64	68	0.00	16	0.08	22	0.32	55	0.05	36	0.13
Niedzielski 1931		63	0.54	45	0.00	68	0.03	71	0.03	77	0.03	84	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		44	0.60	30	0.00	44	0.04	42	0.10	59	0.04	61	0.06
Osinska 1989		22	0.66	80	0.00	34	0.05	31	0.23	50	0.05	37	0.11
Pachmann 1927		55	0.56	61	0.00	72	0.03	78	0.03	33	0.17	57	0.07
Paderewski 1930		35	0.63	12	0.02	22	0.06	21	0.33	4	0.46	10	0.39
Perlemuter 1992		5	0.73	3	0.06	6	0.18	4	0.54	8	0.51	1	0.52
Pierdomenico 2008		82	0.42	78	0.00	84	0.03	85	0.03	81	0.03	83	0.03
Poblocka 1999		7	0.72	52	0.00	11	0.11	11	0.43	19	0.33	11	0.38
Rabcewiczowa 1932		38	0.62	67	0.00	31	0.06	32	0.23	21	0.35	20	0.28
Rachmaninoff 1923		54	0.56	50	0.00	58	0.05	57	0.05	75	0.03	71	0.04
Rangell 2001		79	0.43	48	0.00	75	0.03	87	0.03	33	0.22	51	0.08
Richter 1976		51	0.57	13	0.01	62	0.05	56	0.05	52	0.06	66	0.05
Rosen 1989		23	0.65	11	0.02	20	0.07	16	0.36	26	0.26	18	0.31
Rosenthal 1930		72	0.50	73	0.00	78	0.03	86	0.03	65	0.04	89	0.03
Rosenthal 1931		83	0.40	57	0.00	86	0.04	68	0.04	48	0.05	73	0.04
Rosenthal 1931b		87	0.38	85	0.00	87	0.03	82	0.03	48	0.05	78	0.04
Rosenthal 1931c		75	0.48	71	0.00	76	0.03	84	0.03	54	0.04	90	0.03
Rosenthal 1931d		85	0.39	70	0.00	88	0.04	64	0.04	54	0.05	76	0.04
Rossi 2007		86	0.38	65	0.00	85	0.04	61	0.04	38	0.17	47	0.08
Rubinstein 1939		74	0.48	89	0.00	80	0.03	69	0.03	34	0.24	48	0.08
Rubinstein 1952		67	0.53	54	0.00	63	0.04	63	0.04	41	0.16	53	0.08
Rubinstein 1966		19	0.66	31	0.00	32	0.08	27	0.27	17	0.45	14	0.35
Schilhawsky 1960		17	0.67	25	0.01	17	0.09	20	0.33	29	0.36	15	0.34
Shebanova 2002		27	0.65	74	0.00	47	0.05	50	0.05	57	0.05	68	0.05
Smith 1975		20	0.66	23	0.01	24	0.06	18	0.35	32	0.21	23	0.27
Sokolov 2002		49	0.57	27	0.00	49	0.06	46	0.06	44	0.08	54	0.07
Sztompka 1959		8	0.71	24	0.01	7	0.11	9	0.46	18	0.41	8	0.43
Tomsic 1995		36	0.62	35	0.00	55	0.06	47	0.06	27	0.31	34	0.14
Uninsky 1932		14	0.69	5	0.05	12	0.12	13	0.39	14	0.50	7	0.44
Uninsky 1971		6	0.72	9	0.02	8	0.15	10	0.45	11	0.48	5	0.46
Wasowski 1980		42	0.60	19	0.01	50	0.06	49	0.06	71	0.04	63	0.05
Zak 1937		29	0.64	59	0.00	45	0.05	44	0.09	55	0.06	55	0.07
Zak 1951		34	0.63	69	0.00	37	0.06	37	0.15	56	0.06	43	0.09
Average		1	0.80	1	0.35	1	0.35	1	0.70	51	0.06	31	0.20
Random 1		90	-0.10	79	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	41	0.15	74	0.04
Random 2		91	-0.15	88	0.00	89	0.02	89	0.02	59	0.04	88	0.03
Random 3		89	-0.09	91	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	70	0.03	91	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).