Boshniakovich 1969

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		17	0.67	63	0.00	28	0.07	23	0.35	50	0.04	37	0.12
Anderszewski 2003		48	0.59	32	0.00	50	0.05	55	0.05	61	0.03	70	0.04
Ashkenazy 1981		41	0.62	12	0.02	30	0.08	32	0.23	58	0.04	43	0.10
Bacha 2000		74	0.47	47	0.00	74	0.04	73	0.04	61	0.05	63	0.04
Badura 1965		16	0.67	14	0.01	8	0.11	10	0.55	5	0.57	4	0.56
Barbosa 1983		84	0.37	54	0.00	75	0.04	67	0.04	77	0.04	69	0.04
Biret 1990		55	0.57	28	0.00	62	0.04	63	0.04	71	0.04	75	0.04
Blet 2003		42	0.62	74	0.00	44	0.06	43	0.11	65	0.04	50	0.07
Block 1995		15	0.67	3	0.08	6	0.15	12	0.54	2	0.52	5	0.53
Blumental 1952		66	0.51	11	0.02	23	0.06	44	0.11	48	0.05	51	0.07
Boshniakovich 1969		target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target	target
Brailowsky 1960		40	0.62	58	0.00	59	0.03	76	0.03	34	0.24	44	0.08
Bunin 1987		49	0.59	89	0.00	41	0.05	41	0.16	36	0.23	31	0.19
Bunin 1987b		52	0.59	82	0.00	34	0.04	39	0.17	35	0.27	30	0.21
Chiu 1999		70	0.49	43	0.00	64	0.05	59	0.05	60	0.04	65	0.04
Cohen 1997		88	0.25	64	0.00	87	0.03	77	0.03	69	0.04	85	0.03
Cortot 1951		44	0.61	62	0.00	63	0.05	54	0.05	48	0.06	61	0.05
Csalog 1996		87	0.36	67	0.00	78	0.02	86	0.02	72	0.04	84	0.03
Czerny 1949		27	0.64	30	0.00	32	0.10	28	0.27	48	0.06	36	0.13
Czerny 1990		28	0.64	48	0.00	60	0.04	69	0.04	69	0.04	74	0.04
Duchoud 2007		62	0.52	36	0.00	68	0.04	66	0.04	63	0.04	73	0.04
Ezaki 2006		23	0.65	83	0.00	55	0.06	48	0.06	76	0.03	62	0.04
Falvay 1989		69	0.50	65	0.00	85	0.03	82	0.03	77	0.04	80	0.03
Farrell 1958		51	0.59	87	0.00	57	0.07	46	0.07	44	0.09	46	0.08
Ferenczy 1958		67	0.51	68	0.00	82	0.02	83	0.02	83	0.03	89	0.02
Fliere 1977		1	0.79	1	0.32	1	0.31	4	0.63	10	0.51	3	0.57
Fou 1978		20	0.66	53	0.00	7	0.10	13	0.53	14	0.41	9	0.47
Francois 1956		60	0.53	84	0.00	69	0.04	72	0.04	77	0.03	87	0.03
Friedman 1923		86	0.37	90	0.00	67	0.03	74	0.03	40	0.17	53	0.07
Friedman 1923b		85	0.37	79	0.00	66	0.04	62	0.04	40	0.17	48	0.08
Friedman 1930		72	0.47	72	0.00	65	0.04	61	0.04	70	0.04	71	0.04
Garcia 2007		54	0.58	66	0.00	46	0.05	51	0.05	28	0.31	38	0.12
Garcia 2007b		68	0.50	56	0.00	49	0.04	64	0.04	32	0.15	49	0.08
Gierzod 1998		7	0.71	15	0.01	12	0.17	5	0.58	30	0.28	13	0.40
Gornostaeva 1994		5	0.72	29	0.00	18	0.07	17	0.41	24	0.31	14	0.36
Groot 1988		43	0.61	49	0.00	43	0.07	42	0.14	37	0.22	32	0.18
Harasiewicz 1955		19	0.67	4	0.07	4	0.18	3	0.63	17	0.39	7	0.50
Hatto 1993		77	0.45	61	0.00	37	0.05	33	0.21	39	0.12	35	0.16
Hatto 1997		73	0.47	25	0.00	39	0.08	35	0.19	76	0.03	47	0.08
Horowitz 1949		10	0.69	5	0.05	9	0.12	6	0.57	4	0.63	2	0.60
Indjic 1988		75	0.46	88	0.00	38	0.05	34	0.21	55	0.05	42	0.10
Kapell 1951		58	0.54	59	0.00	70	0.04	71	0.04	82	0.03	82	0.03
Kissin 1993		4	0.74	8	0.04	5	0.21	7	0.57	15	0.43	6	0.50
Kushner 1989		11	0.69	37	0.00	19	0.06	15	0.43	39	0.16	24	0.26
Luisada 1991		33	0.64	41	0.00	40	0.05	40	0.17	46	0.06	39	0.10
Lushtak 2004		46	0.60	55	0.00	56	0.07	47	0.07	61	0.04	60	0.05
Malcuzynski 1961		6	0.72	10	0.03	14	0.10	9	0.56	14	0.41	8	0.48
Magaloff 1978		38	0.62	33	0.00	53	0.04	60	0.04	39	0.16	45	0.08
Magin 1975		13	0.68	34	0.00	26	0.08	25	0.31	30	0.21	23	0.26
Michalowski 1933		57	0.56	20	0.01	35	0.04	37	0.17	41	0.17	34	0.17
Milkina 1970		25	0.65	80	0.00	29	0.07	24	0.33	33	0.21	25	0.26
Mohovich 1999		30	0.64	19	0.01	45	0.05	45	0.10	53	0.05	52	0.07
Moravec 1969		82	0.37	40	0.00	88	0.03	75	0.03	79	0.03	78	0.03
Morozova 2008		18	0.67	50	0.00	20	0.08	19	0.39	34	0.18	26	0.26
Neighaus 1950		3	0.76	2	0.10	2	0.22	2	0.68	6	0.57	1	0.62
Niedzielski 1931		59	0.53	31	0.00	58	0.04	70	0.04	73	0.03	81	0.03
Ohlsson 1999		36	0.63	38	0.00	47	0.06	50	0.06	66	0.04	57	0.05
Osinska 1989		8	0.70	46	0.00	27	0.08	18	0.40	34	0.23	20	0.30
Pachmann 1927		45	0.60	39	0.00	33	0.05	36	0.17	6	0.51	21	0.29
Paderewski 1930		12	0.69	23	0.00	24	0.06	27	0.28	15	0.34	19	0.31
Perlemuter 1992		32	0.64	35	0.00	31	0.08	29	0.26	55	0.04	40	0.10
Pierdomenico 2008		56	0.57	60	0.00	61	0.04	68	0.04	36	0.23	41	0.10
Poblocka 1999		14	0.68	22	0.00	21	0.08	16	0.41	37	0.16	22	0.26
Rabcewiczowa 1932		63	0.52	70	0.00	81	0.02	88	0.02	78	0.03	88	0.02
Rachmaninoff 1923		61	0.52	27	0.00	48	0.05	53	0.05	78	0.03	66	0.04
Rangell 2001		47	0.59	18	0.01	16	0.09	26	0.28	9	0.45	15	0.35
Richter 1976		34	0.64	21	0.00	22	0.06	20	0.37	11	0.48	11	0.42
Rosen 1989		22	0.66	26	0.00	25	0.07	30	0.26	31	0.24	27	0.25
Rosenthal 1930		64	0.51	71	0.00	73	0.05	56	0.05	49	0.05	59	0.05
Rosenthal 1931		81	0.41	86	0.00	84	0.03	78	0.03	61	0.04	83	0.03
Rosenthal 1931b		80	0.42	91	0.00	77	0.03	81	0.03	67	0.04	86	0.03
Rosenthal 1931c		71	0.48	73	0.00	80	0.02	87	0.02	74	0.03	91	0.02
Rosenthal 1931d		76	0.45	76	0.00	83	0.02	85	0.02	44	0.10	76	0.04
Rossi 2007		78	0.44	81	0.00	86	0.02	84	0.02	65	0.04	79	0.03
Rubinstein 1939		83	0.37	77	0.00	76	0.03	79	0.03	56	0.05	67	0.04
Rubinstein 1952		79	0.44	51	0.00	79	0.03	80	0.03	56	0.06	77	0.04
Rubinstein 1966		65	0.51	75	0.00	72	0.05	57	0.05	47	0.06	58	0.05
Schilhawsky 1960		39	0.62	16	0.01	17	0.09	21	0.36	44	0.15	28	0.23
Shebanova 2002		9	0.70	24	0.00	15	0.12	14	0.51	21	0.34	12	0.42
Smith 1975		26	0.65	78	0.00	54	0.05	52	0.05	50	0.05	56	0.05
Sokolov 2002		50	0.59	45	0.00	52	0.04	65	0.04	48	0.05	64	0.04
Sztompka 1959		35	0.64	52	0.00	51	0.06	49	0.06	60	0.06	54	0.06
Tomsic 1995		53	0.58	42	0.00	71	0.05	58	0.05	68	0.04	68	0.04
Uninsky 1932		37	0.62	17	0.01	36	0.04	31	0.24	38	0.21	29	0.22
Uninsky 1971		24	0.65	7	0.04	13	0.12	22	0.36	33	0.28	17	0.32
Wasowski 1980		31	0.64	44	0.00	42	0.06	38	0.17	31	0.17	33	0.17
Zak 1937		21	0.66	9	0.03	10	0.14	8	0.57	24	0.33	10	0.43
Zak 1951		29	0.64	13	0.02	11	0.19	11	0.55	31	0.19	16	0.32
Average		2	0.79	6	0.04	3	0.16	1	0.69	39	0.15	18	0.32
Random 1		90	-0.10	57	0.00	90	0.01	90	0.01	24	0.34	55	0.06
Random 2		91	-0.12	85	0.00	89	0.01	89	0.01	36	0.15	72	0.04
Random 3		89	-0.05	69	0.00	91	0.01	91	0.01	67	0.04	90	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).